Subject: [manet] Patents-good or bad for progress in MANETs?

From: "Steven M. Hoffberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:00:30 -0500

As the mobile networking field advances to commercialization, it is
interesting to ask whether patents, and the proprietary turf war and legal
battles they encourage, promote deployment, or impede it?

Patents encourage the massive investment necessary to gain widespread
adoption and consolidation with a single compatible protocol, especially in
unlicensed or shared RF spectrum.  In the absence of barriers to entry and
enforced standardization, it will take years longer for significant and
pervasive consumer MANET applications to emerge.  Note that the issue is not
all or none, since some players have already committed to the patent system,
perhaps forcing all to likewise engage.

On the other hand, the impending "Blackberry" permanent injunction (NTP vs.
RIM) drives home the downside of the patent system, especially for innocent
users caught in the middle of what is ultimately an economic battle between
commercial entities.

I open this topic to the group, and would be especially interested in the
perspective of scientists from outside the US.

I am sufficiently committed to the validity of the patent model that I will
offer to acquire patent rights from others, even for early stage conceptions
and draft conference paper submissions.

Very truly yours,

Steven M. Hoffberg

Suite 460

10 Bank Street

White Plains, NY 10606

(914) 949-3100 tel.

(914) 949-3416 fax

[email-masked]

www.hoffberg.org <http://www.hoffberg.org/> 

Skype Username: mildehoffberg 

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:41:52 -0800

I would think this is more appropriate to the [email-masked] list.

I am personally torn on patents. I personally think that the US  
patent office has a history of granting patents that don't stand up  
(I'm told that 80% of patents fail in court), and consider the cost  
of defending one-self a great drain on both time and money, and a  
great impediment to innovation. On the other hand, there are a number  
of companies who consider IPR to be a revenue source and retain large  
patent portfolios in support of their legal efforts. In my company's  
case, we feel compelled to build patent portfolios of our own that we  
can cross-license - the alternative being to pay fairly stiff prices  
for the use of the other company's IPR. So we offer a fairly simple  
approach in most cases (there are cases where we have done  
differently, mostly related to an acquisition). We file the proposed  
IPR, notify the IETF, and tell the IETF that we are quite happy to  
license the technology for use at no cost. However, if an  
implementing company sues us over IPR, then any such license is  
automatically revoked, and we will be happy to cross license or  
accept their money if they prefer the confrontational route.

In terms of standardization, the announcement that there is IPR  
associated with a proposal is generally pretty disruptive. Folks are  
predisposed to not standardize encumbered approaches if they have an  
alternative. So the working group immediately asks about the  
specifics of the filing - what is the patent on? This, however, is  
confidential during the filing process, and cannot be stated  
concretely until the patent office has commented on the filing. So  
the working group is asking a question that has no answer, and gets  
pretty frustrated when no answer is forthcoming. Discussions often  
turn personal: this person or that company is accused of playing  
cagey games while screwing up the standards process. I can't say I  
have seen very many cases in which the accusation was true, and as a  
former IETF chair I have been involved in a number of such  
discussions, but the accusation is commonly made.

If you want my personal opinion, the patent system is systematically  
abused, and there is a sufficiently poor screening process at USPTO  
that the abuses affect everybody pretty badly. I would prefer that it  
were abolished.

On Feb 22, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Steven M. Hoffberg wrote:
> interesting to ask whether patents, and the proprietary turf war  
> and legal battles they encourage, promote deployment, or impede it?
>
> Patents encourage the massive investment necessary to gain  
> widespread adoption and consolidation with a single compatible  
> protocol, especially in unlicensed or shared RF spectrum.  In the  
> absence of barriers to entry and enforced standardization, it will  
> take years longer for significant and pervasive consumer MANET  
> applications to emerge.  Note that the issue is not all or none,  
> since some players have already committed to the patent system,  
> On the other hand, the impending “Blackberry” permanent injunction  
> (NTP vs. RIM) drives home the downside of the patent system,  
> especially for innocent users caught in the middle of what is  
> ultimately an economic battle between commercial entities.
>
> I open this topic to the group, and would be especially interested  
> in the perspective of scientists from outside the US.
>
> I am sufficiently committed to the validity of the patent model  
> that I will offer to acquire patent rights from others, even for  
> early stage conceptions and draft conference paper submissions.

---

From: "Steven M. Hoffberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:38:13 -0500

Every patent is clearly suspect.  Ask any attorney confronted with an
accusation of patent infringement, and the initial response is to
investigate (and hopefully challenge) validity.  On the other hand, not all
patents are invalid--some things really cover "inventions", and some patents
adequately describe and claim them.

Other than economic arguments which investigate initial allocation of
burden, and front-end vs. back end investment in justifying grant, there is
little defense for issuance of demonstrably invalid patents.  However, just
as in any engineering discipline, perfection is not achievable, so some
error rate is inherent in the system.

The issue of the standard of obviousness as applied to patentability is
another matter, and the subject of great debate outside the focus of this
group.  As we make the standard harder to meet, we encourage innovators to
keep their innovation as trade secret, and we prevent use of patents as a
tool to secure investment in R&D.  (This, in turn, impedes vocational
mobility among engineers.)  As we make the standard looser, we allow
individuals to usurp the public domain.

The press and others seem to have confounded the assertion of patents by
patent acquisition organizations, with the issuance of weak patents.  These
issues are separate, and perhaps antithetical.  An organization which
acquires patents after issuance for assertion against others will logically
tend to select the best patents available, to minimize its downside risk.
Why assert a weak patent when the same resources could be used to assert a
strong one?  On the other hand, it is those who retain ownership of their
own patents that are likely to assert them regardless of risk based on the
NIH principle.

Now, to the point.  Assuming that a patent is valid and describes a valuable
invention, why should IETF as a matter of policy refuse to offer full
compensation to the inventor?  To make matters worse, why should IETF seek
to place patentee in competition with its own standard, possibly giving the
patentee an advantage over the standard?

With respect to MANETs, perhaps the issue is more acute.  With some notable
exceptions, commercialization remains forthcoming.  There are, no doubt,
already a large number of relevant issued patents and pending applications,
only a small portion of which are available to IETF.  Other than waiting for
these patents to expire in 15-20 years, implementing archaic or inferior
technologies, or seeking legislative solutions, how should this issue be
addressed?  Perhaps, proactive approach seeking to acquire the relevant IP,
rather than denying its value, is a better approach.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] Patents-good or bad for progress in MANETs?

On Feb 22, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Steven M. Hoffberg wrote:
> On the other hand, the impending "Blackberry" permanent injunction