[M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting

[Daniel B. Miller]

It's not that hard to do a search, but of course you're trying to prove a
negative -- that there doesn't exist a patent with defensible claims XXX.
Another problem is that you will probably find patents that DO claim XXX
but in fact were poorly researched by the patent examiner.  Lack of
funding in the PTO and a general attitude of letting the courts resolve
conflicts have created a situation where gobs of indefensible patents
based on prior art have been published.
So what do you do when you find those patents?  Now you have to search
THEIR validity with more patent searching, and probably pay some IP atty
to rate their defensibility...  and the search goes on.
Sort of reminds me of the Halting Problem -- I doubt there is any way to
predictably rate the likelihood of being sued by someone for using a
specific piece of IP.  What you really want to do is not find patents that
could be brought against you, but find patents and academic research that
could be used to _defend_ you against such a suit.
So, my suggestion would be (since apparently we're throwing money around
this week) to pay someone to track down the provenance of all the major
concepts in H.26L, with the mandate to attempt to find prior art in the
PD -- expired patents, published papers with no known associated patents,
etc.  Prepare a strong, general defense rather than trying to identify
all possible offensive maneuvers that could be brought against you.
 ___  Dan Miller
(++,) CTO and founder, On2 Technologies
On Wed, 15 May 2002, William J. Fulco wrote:
> I would have to agree with Jordan - that gathering some "hard" (admittedly a
> squishy term in this field) about POSSIBLE IP would be good, however if
> there is a fear of a "submarine" patent - and someone does indeed have
> such - they're not going to tell anyone up front... are they?  A "call for
> evidence" seems to me to be a way to distribute the search across all the
> potential actors in the space - but that's not the only way to my thinking.
>
> Wouldn't a general purpose patent-search see if there are any possible
> overlaps with MPEG-4/10 technologies? Don't most good IP law firms have
> people that do this kind of stuff? I'm sure they're even better at searching
> patents than the people that actually work in the USPTO.  Seems like it
> would be a "simple" (for a price or course) matter to retain an IP law firm
> to do some patent searches and see what they come up with.  Then it is a
> matter for people in places that count to decide what to do with the info...
>
> The only other "danger" I would see would be someone that's filed some
> patent disclosure documents - and then have a couple years to file the
> actual patent - I don't know (and doubt) that those are searchable...
>
> How hard is it to get this done?
>
> ++Bill
>
> William J. Fulco
> wjf   NetworkXXIII.com
> 310-927-4263 Cell
> ---------------------------------
> Logic: When you absolutely, positively
> have to refute every fallacy in the room.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-admin   lists.m4if.org
> > [mailto:discuss-admin   lists.m4if.org]On Behalf Of Jordan Greenhall
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 10:59 AM
> > To: 'Rob Koenen'; 'AVARO Olivier FTRD/DIH/REN'; 'Eric Scheirer'; 'M4IF
> > Discussion List (E-mail)'
> > Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] RE: [M4IF News] Results M4IF Fairfax Meeting
> >
> >
> > What would it take to fund due diligence on the patents within MPEG-4
> > and/or H.26L?  I would support a 3rd party evaluation, and I'm sure that
> > many other members of M$IF would support it as well.  There is so much
> > FUD in this space, it is hard to know what is real and what is
> > confusion.
> >
> > Jordan
>
> [snip]
> > We are trying to confirm that what the people in the field believe
> > to be true: there is no IP on SA.
> > To gain more confidence, we will try to seek evidence to the contrary.
> > If such evidence does not turn up, then SA implementers will be able to
> > live with a little more comfort. If evidence does turn up, we will try
> > to get licensing on RAND terms established by acting in our catalyst
> > capacity.
> >
> > Best,
> > Rob
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss   lists.m4if.org
> http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>