[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Patents
After reading Simpson's intentionally bruising and misleading
statements regarding IBM patents and participation in the IETF
process, I feel that I must respond.
First, there are engineers involved here, not demons from hell.
These people, some of which I know, spend time researching
new technology and developing it. Sometimes, after the successful
conclusion of a project, it is decided to try to patent the
mechanisms which were invented during the development of the
project. Is this unreasonable? Surely not!
Second, anyone who has good ideas should be welcomed as part
of the IETF process. Shall we all disclose our entire patent
portfolio before we speak? Maybe for completeness, we should
preface each public statement with a description of possible
corporate interests? Somehow, it doesn't seem quite right.
No, indeed, I would think that all participants should be
well informed of the importance of disclosing patents, when
they realize that they have knowledge of patents that are
relevant. This has to be balanced with the obvious desire
to avoid disclosing patented technology which may not be relevant.
I'd hate to see any IETF working group spend all of its time
hassling over patent law. In fact, I'm alarmed at the amount
of time spent hassling in general! I thought the last mobile-IP
working group went very well, because the consensus building
and direct participation of our working group chair. With the
same approach, and no changes to our working paradigm, I'm
sure we could have had at least one working draft last fall.
I sure am tired of hearing accusations. In fact, these accusations
are quite counterproductive. Bill Simpson paints a bleak picture
of ostracism for any "unfortunate" engineers who might be named in
a patent disclosure. Who wants to stand up to that sort of public
invective? Why not instead welcome participation by such engineers
according to mutually beneficial and productive bylaws?
Bill's strategy of division and nastiness is really wrong.
IETF working groups should not favor poor technology to avoid
patents, when the patented technology is to be made available
at low or no cost. We'd just be agreeing that IETF protocols
are what's left over after the cream is skimmed. I think it would
be a lot smarter to increase the recognition within the working
groups for exploring patent issues early, make sure that the
participants get reasonable corporate statements when patented
technology may be incorporated as part of a proposed protocol,
and stop these misguided assertions of malevolence.
On the subject of patents in general, I almost agree with Phil's
assessment of damage. The problem seems to be that getting a
patent is too expensive, beyond the reach of the average working
engineer who might come up with a slick idea. Thus corporations
and corporate lawyers have an advantage. And, since the lawyers
want to maximize corporate advantage, they ask for everything
they can get from the Patent Office, without intentionally trying
to claim prior art. As far as they are concerned, it's a matter
of building a case, arguing it, and winning as much as possible.
To change that, the Patent Office must change what it will
grant, since it's unlikely anyone can change the legal profession.