IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Expired patents

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 20 June 2014 02:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 5A14B1A04B9 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 s82VDo4VFBti for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A2751A04B0 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.117] (adsl-108-80-228-11.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net [108.80.228.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s5K2Srnk032101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:28:57 -0700
Message-ID: <53A39C22.5070702@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:27:46 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, IPR WG <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Expired patents
References: <53A38D52.1070604@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53A38D52.1070604@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/ZqFChtsiN9ysc7XQ2Bi3zVl4-3k
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 02:29:04 -0000

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.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email