RE: Code vs text

["Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>]

> And, fwiw, 
> there have been zero claims from anyone with obvious 
> competence to have an opinion (e.g., a law degree and 
> license) that anything more than our traditional rights to 
> reproduce and distribute in toto are needed to establish or 
> reference prior art claims.

I can't understand how your response deals with Todd's point. ["My point is
that there may be many ID's for which the code portions cannot be extracted
or isolated from the text portions of the document as well."]

I'm also not sure what competent blessing you're expecting, John. But if you
want a degreed and licensed lawyer to stand up and say that the current IETF
IPR policies do not have anything to do with establishing prior art claims,
I'll be glad to do so. But please do not read that statement as support for
the current IPR policies, which are deficient in the ways identified here
already. I'm glad there is a project underway to clean them up, including
extending beyond IETF's "traditional rights."

/Larry

** Lawrence Rosen
** Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices
** Stanford University School of Law, Lecturer in Law
** 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
** 707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243
** Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom
**    and Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
** [www.rosenlaw.com]  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipr-wg-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of John C Klensin
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:06 PM
> To: todd.glassey at att.net; Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Simon Josefsson; ipr-wg at ietf.org; Spencer Dawkins
> Subject: Re: Code vs text
> 
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, 24 January, 2006 16:47 +0000 todd.glassey at att.net
> wrote:
> 
> > How would you deal then with a wrtitten description of the code and 
> > its flow? - from a patent point, the narrative of the system is as 
> > important as the mechnical descriptions put forth in the claims. My 
> > point is that there may be many ID's for which the code portions 
> > cannot be extracted or isolated from the text portions of 
> the document 
> > as well.
> 
> There is no "patent point".  This discussion has been about 
> issues in copyright to, and copyright licensing of the text, 
> possibly including code snippets, pseudocode, interpretable 
> tables, etc.  Whatever the patent policy is, it doesn't 
> impact this stuff and this doesn't impact it.  And, fwiw, 
> there have been zero claims from anyone with obvious 
> competence to have an opinion (e.g., a law degree and 
> license) that anything more than our traditional rights to 
> reproduce and distribute in toto are needed to establish or 
> reference prior art claims.
> 
>     john
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg


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