At 10:33 PM 9/22/00 +0000, Bob Braden wrote:
> *> If the patent office staff and patent infringement defense attorneys
> had
> *> searchable access to the database of Internet Drafts, their jobs
> would bne
> *> easier and the quality of their work would improve.
>
>In other words, the Lawyers Rule.
Community *Need* Rules.
As it is supposed to for the IETF.
Lawyers do not initiate patents, nor do they initiate patent infringement
cases.
At 04:43 PM 9/22/00 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>That assumes facts not in evidence and even contrary to well known
>evidence. Defense attorneys would have only a somewhat easier time of
I've no idea what "well known evidence" you are referring to.
My experience is limited to 3 cases. In every one of them, easy access to
the I-D archives would have reduced legal research effort (and therefore
cost); in one case, the effect probably would have been quite substantial.
>it, but the outher side would gain even more. The defense can now ask
>around quietly to find prior art. However if the other guys know what
"ask around" is usually very expensive.
>you're going to say, your case can be lost. A concrete example of that
This is one of the more bizarre arguments against having public access to
prior art that I can imagine.
Keep it private so that the holders of the patent won't know you know about
it??? That, of course, ignores the likelihood that it won't be discovered
by the defense, either.
If the information is readily public, it inherently reduces the ability to
claim that the art is sufficient for a patent.
>If the patent office staff can't be bothered to check textbooks, do you
Checking textbooks is different effort from an automated search of a data
base. At that, the patent file histories I have seen do show that the
patent folks occasionally do serious research, not just limited to patents.
>really expect them to figure out how to search a mass of text like 1000's
>of I-D's? If they issue patents on "hyper-light-speed" antennas (see
>http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn=US06025810__ ), can you really
>expect them understand
This line of logic competes with the earlier one, since it says we should
make no effort to improve the information available to the patent office
because they won't use it.
(That' logic has been used, over the centuries, to claim that all sorts of
groups should be deprived of information, education, and the like. It is
an argument against change, essentially using a "this is the way it has
always worked" basis.
>I favor of an IETF archive of I-D's, because the current ad hoc network
>of I-D archives is inconvenient to use and subject to manipulation. The
Isn't it nice, the way entirely different views can lead to the same
conclusion? And the nice thing about consensus is that it does not matter
whether we agree on the underpinnings, as longs as we agree on the decision.
d/
