RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list

["Peter Kay" <peter@titankey.com>]

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