RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list

At 07:14 PM 6/15/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote:

>Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> > 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.
>
>         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, 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 

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg