Re: References to Redphone's "patent"

[Thierry Moreau <thierry.moreau at connotech.com>]

Lawrence Rosen wrote:

> Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's "patent" but
> there is no such thing.

In my emails, I used the reference to US patent application 11/234,404
as amended on 2008/01/25.

> As anyone who has ever worked with real patents knows, there is a great
> difference between a patent application and a patent. Whatever claims are
> written in patent applications are merely wishes and hopes, placeholders for
> negotiated language after a detailed examination of the application. Until
> the PTO actually issues a patent, nothing is fixed. And even then,
> newly-found prior art and other issues can defeat an issued patent. 

Indeed, plus the geographical applicability restrictions that are
determined 30 or 31 months after the priority date according to PCT
rules - the above patent application has national or regional 
applications in Australia, Canadian, and the EU (I didn't check the EPO 
database, perhaps it's not the whole EPC member states).

> Why are we all so afraid of Redphone? Who gives a damn what patent claims
> they hope to get? 

I guess (i.e. speculate) that it is more convenient for the FSF to get
publicity / support with a case involving a small organization without
significant market presence and lobbying resources that could retaliate
an FSF campaign more visibly. I thought the GnuTLS connection triggered
the FSF action, but Simon corrected me on this hypothesis.

> There's something wrong with the IETF process if spurious and self-serving
> assertions that "a patent application has been filed" can serve to hold up
> progress on important technology. I wish you'd ask real patent attorneys to
> advise the community on this rather than react with speculation and a
> generalized fear of patents.

I agree.

You may notice that the FSF did not share (AFAIK) any result of
investigation into the patent application status which would include
some professional advice.

Actually, two PCT/WIPO search/examination reports are on-line, and one 
*denies* novelty to every claims but 3 of them, and denies inventive 
step to all of them! The patent applicant may (further) amend the claims 
at the national or regional phase, but the initial assessment is not so 
good for the patent applicant. Check by yourself, I do not provide 
professional advice in here.

So it's really the FSF campaign that is detracting the IETF process here 
in the way you are alluding above. The Redphone's IPR disclosure 1026 
verbatim does not detract the IETF process.

Again, finer investigations and analyses of IPR issues (finer than 
ideological opposition to patents) would be benefitial to the IETF.

Regards,


- Thierry Moreau