Patents, IETF and Network Operators
Hi, Network Ops folks use the IETF standards for their operations. I see lot of nifty things coming out from the IETF stable and i was wondering why those dont get patented? Why bother releasing some really good idea to IETF (i.e. open standards bodies) when the vendor could have patented it. The network operators can still use it as long as they are using that vendor's equipment. I understand that interop can be an issue, since it will be a patented technology, but it will always work between the boxes from the same vendor. If so, then whats the issue? Is interop the only issue because of which most ideas get released into IETF? I guess interop is *an* issue since nobody wants a single vendor network. Thanks, Abhishek
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Abhishek Verma <abhishekv.verma@gmail.com> wrote:
Is interop the only issue because of which most ideas get released into IETF? I guess interop is *an* issue since nobody wants a single vendor network.
I would point you at the 14+ frame-relay networks (that can't interconnect in a meaningful manner) that MCI (still, mostly) runs today... go-go-vendor-proprietary solutions!! -chris
As an starting point you should read "The Tao of the IETF" RFC4677 (currently, update draft in progress). About your particular question read section 8.4.5. Regards Jorge On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Abhishek Verma <abhishekv.verma@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Network Ops folks use the IETF standards for their operations. I see lot of nifty things coming out from the IETF stable and i was wondering why those dont get patented? Why bother releasing some really good idea to IETF (i.e. open standards bodies) when the vendor could have patented it. The network operators can still use it as long as they are using that vendor's equipment. I understand that interop can be an issue, since it will be a patented technology, but it will always work between the boxes from the same vendor. If so, then whats the issue?
Is interop the only issue because of which most ideas get released into IETF? I guess interop is *an* issue since nobody wants a single vendor network.
Thanks, Abhishek
Jorge Amodio allegedly wrote on 01/21/2010 10:41 EST:
As an starting point you should read "The Tao of the IETF" RFC4677 (currently, update draft in progress).
About your particular question read section 8.4.5.
Regards Jorge
Right. And it's subtler than you think. Some network operators have patents (not just vendors). Some are held by organizations that only exist to hold patents and don't actually know much about networking. And just because something is patented doesn't mean it isn't interoperable -- most networking standards are patented. swb
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Abhishek Verma <abhishekv.verma@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Network Ops folks use the IETF standards for their operations. I see lot of nifty things coming out from the IETF stable and i was wondering why those dont get patented? Why bother releasing some really good idea to IETF (i.e. open standards bodies) when the vendor could have patented it. The network operators can still use it as long as they are using that vendor's equipment. I understand that interop can be an issue, since it will be a patented technology, but it will always work between the boxes from the same vendor. If so, then whats the issue?
Is interop the only issue because of which most ideas get released into IETF? I guess interop is *an* issue since nobody wants a single vendor network.
Thanks, Abhishek
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> wrote:
Jorge Amodio allegedly wrote on 01/21/2010 10:41 EST:
As an starting point you should read "The Tao of the IETF" RFC4677 (currently, update draft in progress).
About your particular question read section 8.4.5.
Regards Jorge
Right. And it's subtler than you think. Some network operators have patents (not just vendors). Some are held by organizations that only exist to hold patents and don't actually know much about networking. And just because something is patented doesn't mean it isn't interoperable -- most networking standards are patented.
Just like as - "US Patent 6701329 - Aging and scavenging of DNS resource records" (Microsoft) - "US Patent 7337910 - Methods and devices for responding to request for unregistered domain name to indicate a predefined type of service" (Verisign SiteFinder fiasco) - "US Patent 6560634 - Method of determining unavailability of an internet domain name" (Verisign) - "US Patent 7580982 - Email filtering system and method" (Go Daddy) - "US Patent 7130878 - Systems and methods for domain name registration by proxy" (Go Daddy) Just to list a few. Be careful the next time you use "vi", somebody may have already patented that regular expression. Cheers Jorge
The real question is why Patent something? The reality is even if you patent any idea/feature, other vendors will come out with a similar (although not patent infringing) version of the same idea/feature. While you might get a short term jump on other vendors, if the idea is really good, everyone else will catch up quickly. Further, customers REALLY like inter-op, I know for one I don't use protocols from vendors that aren't "standard" On Jan 21, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Abhishek Verma wrote:
Hi,
Network Ops folks use the IETF standards for their operations. I see lot of nifty things coming out from the IETF stable and i was wondering why those dont get patented? Why bother releasing some really good idea to IETF (i.e. open standards bodies) when the vendor could have patented it. The network operators can still use it as long as they are using that vendor's equipment. I understand that interop can be an issue, since it will be a patented technology, but it will always work between the boxes from the same vendor. If so, then whats the issue?
Is interop the only issue because of which most ideas get released into IETF? I guess interop is *an* issue since nobody wants a single vendor network.
Thanks, Abhishek
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Shane Ronan <sronan@fattoc.com> wrote:
The real question is why Patent something?
Patents are a good source of revenue for companies that invest a lot on R&D and to create "intellectual property" (well sometimes not that much). As far as I know in the US you can patent any "original idea" (even the best approach to catch brain farts with a spoon) regardless of its application, usability, stupidity or interoperability. Some companies need to keep their attorneys entertained, but if by a chance you happen to "use" somebody else "original idea" in your product, the inventor of the "original idea" has the right to block you (many file patents just for that) to use the idea or request the payment of royalties until the protection expires (17 or 20 years after filing depending if it was after or before 1995, some design patents expire in 14 years) and you in theory are able to use the idea but probably it will be to old. Jorge
-----Original Message----- From: Shane Ronan Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:33 AM
The real question is why Patent something?
The reality is even if you patent any idea/feature, other vendors will come out with a similar (although not patent infringing) version of the same idea/feature. While you might get a short term jump on other vendors, if the idea is really good, everyone else will catch up quickly. Further, customers REALLY like inter-op, I know for one I don't use protocols from vendors that aren't "standard"
The purpose of a patent is not to keep others from using your idea but exactly the opposite. It gives you exclusive use of an idea but also makes for a mechanism where your idea is then documented and can be used and improved upon by others once your exclusive use expires. It was designed (in the US, at least) as an alternative to keeping everything secret and an idea dying with the inventor/enterprise. The notion being that you would have exclusive use of the idea long enough to have a commercial advantage but eventually the world could benefit in a more general sense if the idea proved to be a good one. The way patents are used today as a commodity is against what the original purpose was. To quote http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi792.htm : As secretary of state, Jefferson ran our first American patent office. For him, its purpose was to promulgate inventions, not to protect them. He hated monopoly and was determined that the patent process shouldn't serve it. The peculiar character of an idea, said Jefferson, is that ... no one possesses the less because everyone possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me. Jefferson had used mathematics to design a wonderfully improved plow. When he was done, he gave it away -- to America -- then to Europe. He would turn in his grave at the way today's patents make ideas into property.
The purpose of a patent is not to keep others from using your idea but exactly the opposite. It gives you exclusive use of an idea but also makes for a mechanism where your idea is then documented and can be used and improved upon by others once your exclusive use expires.
Explain that to the pharma' boys http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/cgsd/documents/lehman.pdf
On Jan 21, 2010, at 1:29 PM, George Bonser wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Shane Ronan Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:33 AM
The real question is why Patent something?
The reality is even if you patent any idea/feature, other vendors will come out with a similar (although not patent infringing) version of the same idea/feature. While you might get a short term jump on other vendors, if the idea is really good, everyone else will catch up quickly. Further, customers REALLY like inter-op, I know for one I don't use protocols from vendors that aren't "standard"
The purpose of a patent is not to keep others from using your idea but exactly the opposite. It gives you exclusive use of an idea but also makes for a mechanism where your idea is then documented and can be used and improved upon by others once your exclusive use expires.
Yes and no -- don't confuse the purpose of a patent with the rights it gives you. A patent is not the right to do something; it's the right to keep others from doing it. The purpose, though, is as you say: in exchange for publication of your ideas, society gives you a limited-term monopoly. I should add: patents can help society not just because it sees your ideas, but because of the monopoly: people are motivated to invent around your patent. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
participants (8)
-
Abhishek Verma -
Christopher Morrow -
George Bonser -
Jorge Amodio -
Randy Bush -
Scott Brim -
Shane Ronan -
Steven Bellovin