----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Wouters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "bert hubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <dnsop@ietf.org>; "TS Glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-dickinson-dnsop-nameserver-control-00
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.
Then you personally are assuming all professional liability for this working
group if you are wrong since you just formally advised everyone on this list
to ignore the patent's coverage. Nice move... since you literally are not
qualified to tell people that, whereas I am allowed to assert that these
technologies are protected by our patent as the patent's protector. The ONLY
person who can formally say otherwise by the way is a lawyer.
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.
1) The SSL restrictions comes from a single product which accomplished
this process. The SSL process is a simple tool which provides modular usage
of itself as a tool, based on the key/pki model used.
By the way Paul - I am negotiating with Network Solutions on their
ownership of the US Navy's SSL patent as well.
2) The controlling access, patent is a derivative of an already filed patent
and was originally filed in 1999 and issued in 2002 not filed in 2002 as you
mistakenly represented here. The thing that ties it all together is the
location value being asserted through the inclusion of the location-tool
(the GPS reciever).
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).
They dont need to - they just need to have location-broadcasts which use
signed location data.
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.
Which further document's why its improper for you Paul to be giving people
legal advice here. The US Government issued the patent so they and six other
jurisdictions thought it was OK and there wasn't prior art preventing its
implementation.
And yes Paul I can and will document how the patent pertains to DNSSEC and
any number of other processes which now use secured-location information as
part of their keying process for administering their practical security
policy.
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1749 - Release Date: 10/27/2008
7:57 AM
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
