Re: [chairs] Of un-patents and un-inventions

[Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>]

Except for the name, I think this is the best idea I have heard yet wrt IPR!
Cheers,
Elysa Jones, EM-TC

At 11:02 PM 3/13/2005, David Webber \(XML\) wrote:
>One of the underlying threads with the current OASIS IPR policies
>seems to be this notion of protection from the boogeyman of
>USPTO patents.
>
>But what if instead of passively waiting for the boogeyman to
>come - we created a wall of preemptive strikes?  Attack afterall
>is the best means of defense.  Filing USPTO patents is not an
>option as that merely falls into the same bear trap that we
>are trying to avoid in the first place.
>
>It suddenly occurred to me - that creating un-patents and un-inventing
>is entirely possible - and indeed we could create a review board
>and repository to receive these.  These would be a powerful antidote
>to any possible future claims - and also make nice references for
>the OASIS specifications to cite the un-invention and un-patent.
>
>Notice I have two issued USPTO patents that I filed some years
>back - so I'm very familiar with the regular patent process.
>
>In the course of any given year I probably have 10 or 15 notions that
>would be highly "patentable" - and if I worked for Microsoft or IBM
>I'm sure they would file them.  Many times these ideas simply
>end up as part of the embodiment of an OASIS specification,
>because they are part of the process of developing the specification.
>
>Example - the work I've just done on a trusted voting process:
>http://drrw.net/backup/Trusted-Ballot-Processing-Nutshell.pdf
>
>The irritating thing about this situation is that some twit could file a
>USPTO patent based on some variation of an idea that had become
>public - and then hold a whole community hostage around that - or
>so the theory goes anyway - and we seem to be convinced that
>this boogeyman is real enough to warrent IPR policies and
>enforcement, and declarations and what not.  But if we had
>an un-invention mechanism - anyone who had any concerns
>could simply put together an un-invention statement and file
>that to the un-invention repository.  Also - an un-invention is
>by its nature a lot easier to draft - stating what it is that you
>are un-inventing - and why you feel its an un-invention - such
>as stating that the whole thing is clearly self-evident and
>reliant on prior work (within OASIS would be nice!) - and
>notions that are already publicly known (such as in specifications
>or the un-invention repository).
>
>And just as the USPTO issues patents - an authorative body such
>as OASIS could receive un-patents and un-inventions, have
>peer review boards review same for accuracy and completeness -
>and then log them into a Kavi for public access.
>
>The beauty of this - since its an un-invention - its does not matter
>if someone else already has another un-invention that is broadly
>similar, that merely reinforces the un-invention again.  This makes
>the review boards job much easier.  They don't need to worry
>about prior art - et al - just that the un-invention makes technical
>sense.
>
>Since the USPTO does not seem to ever read public specifications
>or open sourced licensed components - this would also give the
>USPTO a convenient means to check the un-invention
>registry on Kavi before taking the stupid step of issue one of
>their own software invention licenses.
>
>So OK - I'm dreaming that OASIS would ever do this - or the
>W3C - but certainly someone elsewhere could - and probably
>the EU for one would be a great potential home from an
>un-invention repository.
>
>OK - shoot this idea down for me!?!
>
>DW