Subject: Neutering the impending patent wars... this is something the IETF can actually have a role in...

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:30:55 -0700

You folks want to end the wars over patents - including mine? - OK I
agree its something that needs to happen but how? Apple v Samsung and
Grail Semi v Mitsubishi have created even stronger walls in the patent
worlds and these are becoming more and more of a show-stopper type of
road-block to innovation.

The problem is how to make patents and the protection they provide
something that is more powerful and which has a cost of enforcement
responsibility so that unenforced patents cannot be used as a weapon to
stifle competition in the marketplaces...

The key to doing that is actually pretty simple and it is in
establishing a method of defining the worth to an unenforced patent, as
to why, most patents issued today are empty threats - they will not be
enforced no matter how many infringements there are against them and
functionally this only serves to neuter the value proposition for the
patents themselves.

This is true today because there is no need to actively manage the
patents because patent owners have gotten away for years by saying that
their patents have no value (a bold faced lie by the way) and as such
only have a positive value when an infringement that they choose to
enforce a claim against happens... i.e. its mine but it has no value...
so then isn't the real issue in this in developing a common and
open-framework for establishing a value for an unenforced patent?

As to why - tax bounty... pure and simple.

This is an offer to change the world - and it can and should happen from
within a GSO.

Does the IETF want to be that entity?

Todd Glassey

-- 
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:55:15 -0400

Todd:

The intended recipients are two public mail lists.  Given that situation the legend at the bottom of you message seems inappropriate to me.

Russ

On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:30 PM, tglassey wrote:

> [snip]

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:30:28 -0700

> On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:30 PM, tglassey wrote:
Agreed. Sorry, how about the one at the bottom of this letter? this also 
is a good thing to include in all IETF postings. We should add this to 
the recommendations in the BCP's as well I think.

Todd

-----------------

//Submitted to IETF mailing list(s) under full NOTE-WELL COMPLIANCE
See  http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html