>
>Of course, sometimes even when a patent looks like it can be attacked,
>it's not as easy as you first thought. I recently looked at one which
>seems kind of bogus to me, as it clearly used only already available
>technology, but we're having trouble on the "innovation" front, as the
>use of existing technology in a clever way is also patentable. In any
>event, I definitely think the IETF could be doing a lot more in this
>area, but that's just one person's opinion.
We are spinning off into another area from the original problem of how to
make the transfer of large email files attachments easier and more
efficient for users and relieve the stress on the SMTP system. That concept
is worthy of IETF work.
That said.. your point is well taken. Is there something the IETF
[probably the Internet Society] can do to point out the dangers of
patenting these kinds of "obvious" concepts based on IETF work? How do we
define the difference between " unique and innovative" from the merely
"clever use of"? How do we educate the legislative authorities? I wish I
had an answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GSTN Fax 314.918.9015
MediaGate iPost VoiceMail and Fax 800.260.4464
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
