[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Validity of Patents



> From: jhalpern@Newbridge.COM (Joel Halpern)
> The difficulty I see with your approach is that we end up with
> IETF working groups trying to decide what is or is not a valid
> patent.  That is clearly useless, and could get us into worse
> trouble if we decide wrongly.
>
Thank you, but sometimes we _have_ to decide the validity of patents.

So far, I have only been exposed to 4 cases where patents might apply
to work we have underway, and in all cases the patents were bogus:

 1) In the PPP WG, DEC first proposed using a certain technique for
    multiplying the series that define the 16-bit and 32-bit CRCs, to
    yield a CRC that was correct for both 16 bits and 32 bits.  This
    was used for a single transition packet when switching hardware
    modes.

    After we adopted it, DEC informed us it had applied for a patent on
    the technique.  They wanted $20,000 per license, which they were
    willing to grant on a "non-discriminatory basis".  Since I license
    a complete PPP stack for less (and Phil Karn licenses a complete
    TCP/IP/DNS/email/operating system for less), this was not deemed
    "reasonable" for one packet.

    It took me about 20 minutes to remove that technique, and
    standardize sending 2 packets back to back with the different CRCs
    [RFC-1570].

    Since when is multiplying 2 series considered "original"?  We all
    learned how in second semester calculus.

    Or is creating CRCs from series "original"?  No, that's how CRCs
    have been defined for decades.

    Yet, we chose to avoid the issue in this case.  The minor
    inefficiency was not worth the legal hassle.

 2) In the PPP WG, we have a PPP Compression draft ready to go.  It is
    stalled by a patent claim by Motorola.  Motorola claims to have
    invented sending a NAK back to the sender when a sequence check
    or CRC is bad, when sending "encoded" data over an unreliable link.

    The intent is apparently to claim that compressed or encrypted data
    have never before been sent over unreliable links with sequence
    numbers or CRC protection, and no feedback has ever been sent back.

    Is this valid?  Clearly, no.  I've sent compressed or encrypted
    files over IP for years.

    Yet, we are held up at the IESG.

 3) In Mobile-IP, we learned that IBM has been granted a patent on
    dynamically assigning addresses, keeping a registry of such addresses,
    and distributing these addresses through a server.

    The claim to fame is that this only applies when such a system is
    used to connect a wired network to a wireless network, although
    all kinds of such links are claimed.  TCP/IP is explicitly mentioned.

    Is this valid?  Shall we stop developing Mobile-IP?  DHCP?

    In this case, Charlie admits that he was not a Ham, and had never
    heard of the IETF when he applied for the patent.  Clearly, he was
    not "skilled in the art".

    Never-the-less, Mobile-IP avoids using the technique.  (It wastes
    bandwidth and IP addresses.)  But a lot of people want it (see the
    recent "popup" discussion).

 4) Now, we learn that IBM claims a patent on challenge/response
    authentication, and negotiating a session key with such an exchange.

    Is this valid?  Shall we stop developing Mobile-IP?  IP-Security?

    It took me about 3 hours to remove every taint of this from
    Mobile-IP.  But, I did it by referencing IP-Security....


> 1) Always prefer unpatent technology if it will do the job

Yes, that's the way we handled #1 above.

> 2) Only use patented technology with a committment to non-discriminatory
>     licensing at a reasonable fee.  This is the standard that IEEE and
>     ANSI use.
>
Define "reasonable".

My position is that the only reasonable terms are "none".

My experience negotiating a "free" license (with Stac) is that it
involves 3 contract exchanges, 6 months, and argument over terms and
limits.  And Lawyers.  That is unreasonable.

So, what do we do about cases #2, #3, or #4, where we know there is
plenty of prior art?

I say we ignore the bogus patents, and continue.  After all, in case #3,
we would have to "license" PPP, BOOTP and the DNS....

Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu