Re: Expired patents

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Fri, 20 June 2014 07:07 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F071B2794 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4YWdggRa3cqW for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0206.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34CC31B2791 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.75.22) by CO1PR07MB361.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.75.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.959.24; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:07:03 +0000
Received: from CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.221]) by CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.3.63]) with mapi id 15.00.0954.000; Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:07:02 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IPR WG <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Expired patents
Thread-Topic: Expired patents
Thread-Index: AQHPjCZkTIBiGCM6gkuVz9SBbYGqt5t5RiQA///Yo4A=
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:07:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CFC921F5.493F6%stewe@stewe.org>
References: <53A38D52.1070604@gmail.com> <53A39C22.5070702@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <53A39C22.5070702@dcrocker.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [50.174.124.226]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 024847EE92
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(428001)(189002)(199002)(24454002)(479174003)(377454003)(51704005)(79102001)(81342001)(77096002)(83322001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(87936001)(221733001)(64706001)(99286002)(80022001)(85306003)(20776003)(105586002)(66066001)(106356001)(95666004)(106116001)(2656002)(21056001)(85852003)(36756003)(81542001)(83072002)(92726001)(4396001)(74502001)(46102001)(74662001)(77982001)(92566001)(99396002)(101416001)(50986999)(54356999)(76176999)(31966008)(76482001)(86362001)(42262001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR07MB361; H:CO1PR07MB363.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: stewe.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=stewe@stewe.org;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <76F67B50EFD586488C8AD7F87F886CD9@namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/9Xue5r10wEk0ow8yfi0KJhNH1mM
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:07:10 -0000

Hi,

On 19.6.14, 19:27, "Dave Crocker" <dhc@dcrocker.net>; wrote:

>On 6/19/2014 6:24 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I was wondering whether there is a need for an occasional sweep
>> over the IPR disclosures to tag all those that cite expired
>> patents. We've been at this long enough that it is starting to
>> be relevant. For example, I just noticed that IBM's NAT patent
>> (US5371852) must have expired by now.
>> 
>
>That is certainly a reasonable suggestion, but I suspect it can
>sometimes carry unfortunate complexities.
>
>For example imagine someone filing a continuing patent but not updating
>the IETF's records. There would be relevant IPR encumbrance but we
>wouldn't necessarily know it.

That¹s a bad example.  A continuation inherits the priority date of the
parent, and expires at the same time as the parent (broadly put, and in
most but not all countries, 20 years after the oldest priority date).

Stephan

 
>No matter what we do or don't do, the record won't be perfect, but we
>probably should be cautious about having our records move from
>'encumbered' to 'not encumbered' through any simple process such as a
>timeout.
>
>d/
>
>
>-- 
>Dave Crocker
>Brandenburg InternetWorking
>bbiw.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ipr-wg mailing list
>Ipr-wg@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg