Subject: Guidelines: Should mention SIR (Statutory Invention Registration)?

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:41:52 -0400

I realize that this suggestion comes very late in the game,
however, I would like to suggest that a slight modification be made to
the guidelines draft... 
	I propose that the list of section 5.6 be extended to include
the line:

	"IP rights which have been waived by publication of a Statutory
Invention Registration"

	Although few are aware of it, there is a form of "patent" which
can be used to explicitly place a method in the public domain. This is a
"Statutory Invention Registration." It is handled by the US Patent
Office in much the same way as a patent however, it differs from a
patent in that the holder of a SIR explicitly and irrevocably *waives*
any right to obtain a patent. Of course, once a SIR is filed, others are
also prevented from gaining patents on the same method. 
	Some time ago, I suggested that we include the discussion of
published patent applications (i.e. 12 vs. 30 months...) as an
"educational" addition to the draft. I'd like to suggest that SIRs be
mentioned for the same reason. This is a little known niche of patent
law and should be highlighted a bit. 
	I have often heard of companies that say that they are obtaining
patents in order to protect against others doing the same yet they don't
wish to exercise their patent rights. A SIR would serve just as well in
such a case yet not require licenses -- no matter how free. Also, I've
often heard people say that they would like a mechanism that allowed
ideas to be protected from patent claims. The SIR, an existing
mechanism, does that just fine.
	Potentially, if we can educate people to the fact that the SIR
mechanism exists, we may find that it is used more frequently in the
future and thus results in fewer problems with encumbered methods. This
is the sort of mechanism that might also be very useful to the "open
source" folk since it allows them a means to place ideas into the public
domain without having to compromise their principles by obtaining
patents...

More information on Statutory Invention Registrations can be found at
the US Patent Office:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/1100.htm

		bob wyman

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:57:38 +0200

That's a national issue. IETF is international.

  Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:10:36 -0400

> 	I realize that this suggestion comes very late in the game,

No problem, but I'm going to suggest that it's not necessary :-)

> 	"IP rights which have been waived by publication of a Statutory

The point of the list isn't supposed to be how or why a particular bit
of technology got to this state, just what the state is.  I believe the
first bullet, "license not required" includes IP that has been SIRred.
If you disagree please let me know.

> such a case yet not require licenses -- no matter how free. 

Not exactly, because with a patent in your hand, even though you are
licensing it royalty-free, you have the option of defensive suspension
if they try to sue you.  

> Also, I've

Yup.  I could have used it myself if I had known (in the past).

.swb

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 19:19:27 -0400

Scott W Brim wrote:
> I believe the first bullet, "license not required" 
> includes IP that has been SIRred. If you disagree please let me know.
	You are, of course, correct. That line does cover stuff which
has been SIRred. I'm not going to make a strong or insistent case for
adding it to the list. It was just a passing suggestion. 
	The SIR mechanism seems to address a number of interesting
problems yet appears to be relatively unknown. There may be some value
in calling people's attention to it.

		bob wyman