Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list

"Peter Kay" <peter@titankey.com> wrote:
> I think those type of comments and questions about what is patentable or
> 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
> guessing and we'll end up getting excited over nothing.

  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.

> 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.  

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