Subject: Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:36:15 +0900

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <> writes:

    Thomas> In all of those seemingly most-common cases,

I know what the cases you're talking about are; it's the "seemingly"
I'm questioning.  What I'm asking for is some damn lies, er,
statistics. :-)

    Thomas> I should add that I think there are rare exceptions.  I
    Thomas> have a hard time believing that the RSA patents don't
    Thomas> demonstrate an admirable success of the patent system for
    Thomas> software.

I don't really know.  There's no question in my mind that RSA and
Diffie-Hellman are the kinds of inventive-discovery that patents
*should* be awarded to on the stated grounds of originality and
non-obviousness, not to mention usefulness.

However, evaluating the success of the patent system on the basis of
individual patents is just as incorrect as watching the first electron
plop onto the plate in a two-slit experiment and saying, "see? that
sucker is a *particle*".

    Thomas> Towards the end of the term of the patent, when SSL became
    Thomas> important for browsers and eCommerce, there is a *chance*

IIRC with one year to go Netscrap signed a three-year license.

Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory