Re: Guidelines: Should mention SIR (Statutory Invention Registration)?

[Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 11:41:52AM -0400, Bob Wyman allegedly wrote:
> 	I realize that this suggestion comes very late in the game,

No problem, but I'm going to suggest that it's not necessary :-)

> 	I propose that the list of section 5.6 be extended to include
> the line:
> 
> 	"IP rights which have been waived by publication of a Statutory
> Invention Registration"

The point of the list isn't supposed to be how or why a particular bit
of technology got to this state, just what the state is.  I believe the
first bullet, "license not required" includes IP that has been SIRred.
If you disagree please let me know.

> 	I have often heard of companies that say that they are obtaining
> patents in order to protect against others doing the same yet they don't
> wish to exercise their patent rights. A SIR would serve just as well in
> such a case yet not require licenses -- no matter how free. 

Not exactly, because with a patent in your hand, even though you are
licensing it royalty-free, you have the option of defensive suspension
if they try to sue you.  

> Also, I've
> often heard people say that they would like a mechanism that allowed
> ideas to be protected from patent claims. The SIR, an existing
> mechanism, does that just fine.

Yup.  I could have used it myself if I had known (in the past).

.swb

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg