There seems to be a couple of issues
that are getting intertwined in this discussion.
My understanding of the original intent
was a desire to provide means by which implementers of OASIS standards
would have the freedom to implement specs without licensing issues. My
understanding of the patent process is that this is accomplished by openly
publishing the idea. Considering the millions of ways to publish such information
(including the OASIS document repository, when the sharing bits are set
correctly), I would ask what additional benefit the proposed facility would
have?
The secondary issue which seems to have
taken over the thread relates to preventing patents from being issued;
in particular, helping provide searchable prior art for patent examiners.
I don't see how providing such a facility falls within the scope of the
OASIS consortium. There may be communities that participate in OASIS efforts
that would find such a facility valuable, but would not the facility (and
all the issues with defining and managing it) more naturally fall within
one or more of those communities?
Rich Thompson
OASIS WSRP TC Chair
"David Webber \(XML\)"
<>
03/15/05 12:45 PM
Please respond to
"David Webber \(XML\)"
To
"Wachob, Gabe"
<>, "Chairs OASIS" <>
cc
Subject
Re: [chairs] Of un-patents
and un-inventions
Gabe,
The earlier efforts had somewhat different focuses - and
also were disconnected - not related to a specific
community - and especially a community with
direct linkage to the PTO in the way OASIS members
are.
I also am seeing that the need is the learn from the
past efforts - and particularly to produce a
template with wording and scope that does
directly tie it to the patent process and make
it relevant.
Of course that is easy to say - difficult to do.
However - we are travelling down this path - and
I expect to be able to draft something shortly
that can be peer-reviewed for effectiveness.
Wording is one thing, another is build relevance
through community awareness. If noone
chooses to do this - of course the USPTO can
simply ignore it. Also if patent applications
occur that reference the resource site - then
the USPTO will have to look at it and know
about it.
Clearly we have to do more and different from
what has already gone before. Creative use of
carrots and sticks is anticipated!
Thanks, DW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wachob, Gabe" <>
To: "David Webber (XML)" <>; "Chairs
OASIS"
<>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 12:05 PM
Subject: RE: [chairs] Of un-patents and un-inventions
David-
Can you explain to me how your proposal is different than sites
(and there are several, last time I looked) like the one you mention?
Why is the PTO going to pay any more attention to this effort? While I
do think it would be interesting for OASIS pursue something like this,
I'd hate for it to be ignored just like previous efforts.
-Gabe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Webber (XML) [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:19 AM
> To: Chairs OASIS
> Subject: Re: [chairs] Of un-patents and un-inventions
>
> Elysa,
>
> I'm open to better suggestions!
>
> BTW - seems like the patent approach to this is
> http://www.researchdisclosure.com/
> but again this IMHO falls into the same bear trap we are
> trying to avoid -
> eg -
> this just sucks you down into the morass that is the USPTO -
> we're trying to
> ensure
> we stay away from all that.
>
> I've had a suggest of other terms like "open invention",
or
> "freely reusable
> idea".
>
> I also think we need "obvious and self-evident" in there
too....
>
> Thanks, DW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elysa Jones" <>
> To: "David Webber (XML)" <>; "Chairs
OASIS"
> <>
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [chairs] Of un-patents and un-inventions
>
>
> > Except for the name, I think this is the best idea I have
> heard yet wrt
> IPR!
> > Cheers,
> > Elysa Jones, EM-TC
> >
>
>
>
