On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, bert hubert wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:01:13AM -0800, TS Glassey wrote:
Yeah and like the other DNSSEC I-D's I dfound numerous things in it that
would violate the controls put in place by US Patent 6,370,629 of which I
am one of the two owners and controlling parties to that IP.
Please start litigating. I've looked at this patent and the other one you
mentioned in the context of DNSSEC, and based on earlier discussions with a
patent attorney, your claims don't look like they would stand up at least in
Dutch courts.
I agree. The patent is irrelevant. One example of prior art I can come up
with already is Netscape restricting its SSL download in the 90's to US
citizens only, based on geogrpahical locations of IP addresses, back in
the early day before the Wassenaar Agreement relaxed US export controls,
a decade before the filing of this patent in 2002.
And last I looked, my DNSSEC servers and clients don't have a GPS, the only
part of the "invention" that might possible hold (IANAL)
But the Patent Holder seems to think using a physical key to lock out everyone
"geospatially located outside my house" seems to violate their patent.
I have no idea how DNSSEC possibly relates to this.
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
