No Paul that is an out and out LIE - I made that call and what I asked for
was the legal department and whoever answered the phone refused to provide
information as to who that was unless I justified the conversation. I was
told I would have to 'specify which XCelera Products and processes' before I
was to be transfered to a legal representative of the company without the
individual identifying themselves.
Be advised that your General Counsel will be formally hearing from me
tomorrow and we will ESCALATE THIS MATTER.
Todd Glassey
----- 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 4:10 PM
Subject: Rude legalese phone call, possibly related to "patent infringement"
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Paul Wouters wrote:
Just to inform the IETF community,
Xelerance received a call from a person who refused to identify himself,
who threatened with law suits and would only say it was a matter of
"patent infringement". This person refused to reveal his name, his client
or the product of Xelerance that was deemed to be infringing. It is most
likely this person tried to pretend he was a lawyer, without actually
saying he wasn't.
He was informed to conduct further communication in writing.
I will keep the IETF informed if this indeeds relates to DNSSEC's supposed
violation of geospatial cryptography.
Paul
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1750 - Release Date: 10/27/2008
6:14 PM
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
