RE: [chairs] patent ruling and it's impact on standards organizat ions

Title: RE: [chairs] patent ruling and it's impact on standards organizations

Everyone knows about the abusive handling of software patents by the PTO,

but I do not see how this can be fixed any time soon... 

Meanwhile I do believe that strengthening the disclosure policy of any group working

together on a standard is absolutely key, as confirmed once again in the 

JEDEC / Rambus case, and that is a more attainable objective.

It is likely that if the standard organizations do not provide strong

legally-binding disclosure policies (at least as an option), the companies

involved in the standard work will have to complement the IPR policy of the org

by additional, separate legal collaboration agreements.

Jacques Durand

-----Original Message-----

From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness [mailto:]

Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:16 AM

To: Philpott, Robert; '"

Subject: re: [chairs] patent ruling and it's impact on standards

organizations

Message text written by "Philpott, Robert"

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/pcworld/20030131/tc_pcworld/109132&e=4 <

Robert,

I'm not sure this teaches us anything new at all.

Just more of the same from the current rats nest 

created and sustained by the PTO.

There have been extended and continuing threads 

over in the W3C too on all this (W3C requirements

are more formal than OASIS right now IMHO).

As I've said over in the W3C - the solution is

NOT to be found within the W3C, nor OASIS, nor

anyone else.  All we are doing is trying to 

contain outbreaks of the disease and treat them

when they occur.  Unfortunately the PTO 

continues to spawn never-ending outbreaks

by issuing these patents in the first place.

So the ultimate cure is to eliminate the

disease at its source.

However - there are too many vested interest

blocks to put pressure for real changes at

the PTO - that would sort this mess out.

Notice the PTO gets paid by patents issued,

and has a process that allows examiners just

16 hours to review from start to finish.

And it has got very good at making money,

so it has no incentive to change.  The 

bulk of patents - 95%+ - are nothing to do

with inventions at all - but are simply 

defending product niches and features.

The big corporations submit thousands of

these a year - that keeps lots of people

employed - and ensures they have a dominant

position - and clogs the system so that

genuine inventions (that < 5%) have to wait

years before they get awarded, so that

products based on them have already 

been superceded in the marketplace by

copies and enhancements.

Right now independent inventors

have little incentive to contribute

their real findings - the best invention

is a blackbox that noone really knows

what it does inside - and does need

a patent.  Unfortunately the most 

useful inventions are those that 

can be most easily copied, and there

is no way of having modest fees paid

to inventors for delivering useful

components - its an all or nothing

situation.

Noone involved in this symbiotic cycle

has any incentive to change it.

What brave senator or congress representative

will voice change, given all the party 

contributions from those big companies 

benefiting most with all this?

But until that happens we will just continue to

spin our wheels.

Maybe what is needed is an independent

non-profit pressure group, or an 

international based effort for common

global standards.  

Cheers, DW.

(Holder of two US software patents).

----------------------------------------------------------------

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription

manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>