Re: Boneh/Franklin IBE patent

From: Gregory G Rose (ggr_at_qualcomm.com)
Date: 07/02/03 

Date: 1 Jul 2003 17:41:36 -0700

In article <85c09e0.0307011114.53bc05bf@posting.google.com>,
Jason <NOSPAMperlmodules@lunkwill.org> wrote:
><RANT>
>I just discovered this patent filed last month on the Boneh/Franklin
>IBE system:
>
>http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Boneh.IN.&OS=IN/Boneh&RS=IN/Boneh

Just to clarify, the patent was *filed*
2002-08-13, exactly one year after a provisional
patent was filed on 2001-08-13, which is a couple
of days before Crypto 2001.

It was only just put up on the USPTO web site, 18
months after filing.

[snipped comments about patenting mathematics,
upon which I will not comment.]

>I've built an entire credential system on top of this IBE, with one of
>the primary goals being to avoid the patent minefield that surrounds
>Brands credentials, Chaum credentials and even the notion of trust
>negotiation itself, and now *two years* after publishing at Crypto
>they've filed a patent on it. (Isn't there a 1-year deadline after
>publishing something after which you can't file for a patent?)

As you see, the dates actually sort of line up.

However you raise a very interesting point. The
paper had to be disclosed to the referees of
Crypto'01 *before* the provisional was filed, or
it could not have been in the program.

Now my initial reaction was that more than a year
passed between the first "public disclosure" and
the filing of the *real* patent, but I asked one
of our tame patent attorneys, and she said (note:
she *is* a lawyer, but every case is different, so
this is not to be construed as legal advice) that
they are probably covered. Neither of us was sure
whether disclosure to the program committee would
be considered "public disclosure" (we'd assume so)
but in any case, you have one year from then to
file the provisional, and then another year to
file the full patent.

That only works for the US, though; they're hosed
everywhere else, if the program committee is
considered "public".

>Oh, did I mention they developed it on a DARPA grant? So we all got
>to pay for the privilege.

I thought work done on a DARPA grant had to be
licensed for free or something? This is definitely
not my area though, I could be talking through my
hat. Anyone know?

Greg. 

-- 
Greg Rose                                       INTERNET: ggr@qualcomm.com
Qualcomm Australia          VOICE:  +61-2-9817 4188   FAX: +61-2-9817 5199
Level 3, 230 Victoria Road,                http://people.qualcomm.com/ggr/ 
Gladesville NSW 2111    232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F  E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WTF patents
    ... >> I'm frustrated by patents that seem oblivious to prior art. ... >> Anyone else got an opinion as to whether this patent is ... >> public disclosure before a patent application invalidated it?? ... Best regards, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Stolen Bike
    ... something not necessarily too strong but hollow, and filled with pressurised inky stuff so that anyone breaking through it will get themselves and the bike covered in it. ... The US allows you up to a year after public disclosure to put your patent in. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: WTF patents
    ... I cannot figure out what this guy thinks he is patenting, that is not already prior art (consider in particular the "phantom power" scheme for microphones, and the fact that Alembic basses in the 1970s used external power sources). ... And, is there any way for a member of the general public to weigh in with prior art on a patent application, before it's granted? ... In the US you have a year after public disclosure to file. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: WTF patents
    ... >>> Anyone else got an opinion as to whether this patent is ... >>> public disclosure before a patent application invalidated it?? ... >>application invalidates it. ... > Best regards, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Boneh/Franklin IBE patent
    ... The patent team have formed a company 'voltage security' ... They have announced that they'll be offering open licensing including ... >> whether disclosure to the program committee would ...
    (sci.crypt)