[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XPointer and the '729 patent

• From: "Steven J. DeRose" <Steven_DeRose@b...>
• To: "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@e...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:47:10 -0500

I wish to echo Claude's point that a re-examination, if done, should 
be done in a scrupulously open fashion.

If I understand the "normal" PTO re-examination procedure correctly 
(<dcl>I am not a lawyer</dcl>), it involves only representatives of 
the PTO and of the patent holder. This seems an obviously partial 
procedure, since the PTO has an interest in supporting its own prior 
decisions, and the patent holder has an interest in maintaining its 
patent's validity.

This problem is compounded by the fact that such a re-examination 
lends a (potentially spurious) sense of strengthened validity that 
could adversely affect any later evaluations.

So, I suggest the following:

Either Sun do a simple "dedication to public domain" as someone 
suggested (this would surely be cheaper than spending another couple 
hours' of Sun attorneys' time),

or ensure that a re-examination be, as Clause suggested, include a 
significant set of neutral third party experts. Surely several such 
can be found on this list; assuming people consider me reasonably 
neutral, I would be willing to help without fee (so long as the time 
didn't get excessive).
-- 
Steven_DeRose@B...; http://www.stg.brown.edu/~sjd
Chief Scientist, Brown Univ. Scholarly Technology Group

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XPointer and the '729 patent
    • From: David LeBlanc <whisper@o...>

• References:
  • Re: XPointer and the '729 patent
    • From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why not reinvent the wheel?
• Next by Date: Reinventing the wheel (an implementor point of view)
• Previous by thread: Re: XPointer and the '729 patent
• Next by thread: RE: XPointer and the '729 patent
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread