Subject: draft-brim-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:05:58 -0400

I just sent in draft-brim-ipr-wg-guidelines-00.txt for publication, also
attached here.  It is an attempt at the third document listed in the IPR
WG charter.  The goal is to go through case studies and create "common
knowledge", a conceptual framework and "rules of thumb", for working
groups that have to decide what to do with IPR-encumbered technology.  

It's not (yet) a work of art.  I wanted to get this version out to the
working group so that you all can comment, and I can produce a -01
version before the Atlanta meeting.  That way we can get the big issues
dealt with before the meeting proper.  So please do send in comments,
the sooner the better.  

...Scott

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:54:26 +0900

Hello Scott,

Some comments on your draft:

- Overall very good!

- I would avoid the word 'framework'. It gives an impression
   of completeness that is dangerous, in particular in the IPR area.

- In 4.6 IDN (Internationalized Domain Name), you mention various
   IPR claims, but you don't mention that at least for one of these
   claims, an Internet Draft published long before the patent application
   was submitted (and by a completely different person) was found
   that in the opinion of many WG participants may qualify as
   prior art (and thus make the patent invalid).

   I think this is a very good example to show points such as:
   - Even an approved patent doesn't necessarily have to be taken
     as the last word. Prior art may potentially diminish or invalidate
     the patent claims.
   - Whether something is prior art for a patent or not,
     like all other patent-related issues, cannot be answered
     with absolute certainty, but this may not be necessary;
     a 'good guess' may be good enough.
   - Different reasons for how to evaluate a patent may combine
     to improve the 'good guess'.
     (e.g. we have good reasons to believe that the patent doesn't
      apply to the technology we describe, and we additionally
      have good reasons to think the patent may be invalidated
      by prior art).

- In '5.4 Patents versus Pending Patents', you write:

   "In
    most countries patent applications are published 18 months after they
    are filed, but in the USA that is optional."

    As far as I have heard, this has been changed recently or is
    supposed to change soon.

Hope this helps.   Regards,    Martin.

>dealt with before the meeting proper.  So please do send in comments,

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg