Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list

From: "Peter Kay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:02:54 -1000

Walt,

I think those type of comments and questions about what is patentable or
not are unproductive to this list, mainly because patents are a complex
area of expertise. Unless you're a seasoned patent attorney, patent
examiner, or one that has submitted several patents and gone through the
examination process many times, all one can offer is something less than
a "armchair quarterback" opinion that will typically lead to even more
guessing and we'll end up getting excited over nothing.

Asking technical people for their opinions on the patent process is like
asking laypeople to comment on complex software architecture: you'll get
comments that are completely out of scope and wildly incorrect.  

If there are any patent attorneys on this list, let them step forward.
The rest of us should focus on doing what this group is chartered to do.
See http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 12:17 PM
> To: ASRG list
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list
> 
> 
>   Just how broad are these C/R ("Challenge/Response") patents 
> anyways? As a university student approximately 30 years ago, 
> I spent a couple of summers in the Canadian Armed Forces 
> Militia (i.e. reserves), as a summer job.  One item we 
> learned was... wait for it... challenge/response to let the 
> "good guys" in and keep the "bad guys" out.  I'm sure that 
> any military college will have manuals detailing how it's 
> done.  This is an ancient military practice, and I don't see 
> why computer software doing it versus a soldier on patrol 
> doing it is sufficiently different to rule it out as "prior art".
> 
> -- 
> Walter Dnes <[email-masked]>
> Email users are divided into two classes;
> 1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
> 2) Those who wish they did 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Alan DeKok" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:24:54 -0400

"Peter Kay" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> not are unproductive to this list,

  Discussions of prior art for anti-spam patents should be explicitely
on-topic for this list.

> Unless you're a seasoned patent attorney, patent examiner, or one
> that has submitted several patents and gone through the examination
> process many times, all one can offer is something less than a
> "armchair quarterback" opinion that will typically lead to even more

  So people with experience in a technical field are unqualified to
discuss technology in their field, as soon as the magic word "patent"
appears.  However, people knowledgable in the areas of patents are
qualified to discuss technology in *other* peoples fields, even when
those patent-people are manifestly untrained, and inexperienced in
those fields.

> comments that are completely out of scope and wildly incorrect.  

  Asking technical people for their opinions of the TECHNICAL MERITS
of patents is always appropriate.

  ASRG is attempting to resolve the consent exchange issue, for
email.  Patents which limit the available solutions should be
discussed.  Patents which have prior art should also be discussed.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 12:11:13 -0400

>   Discussions of prior art for anti-spam patents should be explicitely

I was originally planning on tracking prior art from the list for the 
document I am keeping. However, there is simply so much information being 
provided that I am rethinking the decision. However, I would have to agree 
with Alan about this: prior art discussions are practically useless for 
patents that have been already granted, since the group is not planning on 
using the prior art to challenge the patents. The only useful utility that 
may possible come from prior art is the determination of how strong the 
patent is - but then again we are not lawyers.

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 19:14:01 -0400

Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> The only useful utility that may possible come from 
> prior art is the determination of how strong the 

	No. This is simply not true. 

	First, the "strength" of the patent is only of secondary
interest in a "research" group where the focus should be on determining
what is the best mechanism or process for ending the spam problem. The
"strength" of a patent will only become interesting once one is at the
point of recommending specific solutions -- not when we're still trying
to understand what solutions are possible. To understand this
application domain, we need to understand the patented methods, and
their prior art, as well as the unpatented ones.
	Discovering and discussing prior art is useful in that this
prior art might reveal some aspect of a solution that the patent doesn't
cover. Remember, the goal here is "research" or "learning." Also, the
presence of prior art is something that should eventually get used by
those who take the non-research step of recommending and investing in
specific solutions. Just as it is important to know that one or another
method is encumbered, it is important to know that prior art may exist
for one or another encumbering patent. 

		bob wyman

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:12:45 -0400

>for one or another encumbering patent.

Bob, I hear you. Due to your input, I will be splitting the file I am 
maintaining into two - one for general IPR issues and second for IPR 
disclosures made by members of the group.

Yakov