RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list

"Peter Kay" <peter@titankey.com> Tue, 17 June 2003 02:23 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13181 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:23:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5H2McY26796 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:22:38 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5H2Mbm26791 for <asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:22:37 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA13158; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:22:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S655-0001fW-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:20:19 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19S655-0001fT-00; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:20:19 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (a.mx.viagraonlinenow.biz [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GIn2a26353; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:49:02 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5GImMm26312 for <asrg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:48:22 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25159 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:48:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RyzU-00059O-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:46:05 -0400
Received: from imail.centuryc.net ([216.30.168.20] helo=isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RyzT-000592-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:46:03 -0400
Received: from cybercominc.com [66.91.134.126] by isp-appsvr01.centuryc.com (SMTPD32-8.00) id A1236A70062; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:49:07 -1000
Received: from a66b91n134client123.hawaii.rr.com (66.91.134.123) by cybercominc-zzt with SMTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 18:52:41 GMT
X-Titankey-e_id: <ef424221-40c4-400a-b974-8852888e0d15>
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
Message-ID: <DD198B5D07F04347B7266A3F35C42B0B0D8D0E@io.cybercom.local>
Thread-Topic: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list
Thread-Index: AcMzWDQYt8UJ4DkmRw2fZ6wOfJ0n7wA3ySoA
From: Peter Kay <peter@titankey.com>
To: Alan DeKok <aland@freeradius.org>, asrg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id h5GImNm26315
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:47:49 -1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Alan,

Let me refine what I said: discussions on whether a given idea is
patentable or not, or whether a patent holder has a right to a given
patent, are not productive to this list because those questions are best
answered by those skilled in the art/science of patent filing.  With
that, my responses are:

> 
> "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.
> 

I agree.  

> > 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.  

No. But techncal people do not have the knowledge to productively
discuss the legality and/or enforecability of a patent.

> 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.
> 

No. Those skilled in patents can tell you about the patent but probably
can't describe the underlying technology that is contained within the
patent.

> > 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.
> 

I agree. Technical merits, yes. Prior art, yes. Patent enforcability
and/or validity, probably not.

>   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.


I agree. And add this: "discussions of whether a given patent is
enforceable or legitimate SHOULD not be discussed".

Peter


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