On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, TS Glassey wrote:
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.
It is interesting that you claim such far reaching affects of statements made
on mailinglists, especially seeing that in 2003 you yourself claimed:
know that I am not a lawyer and thus not qualified to advise
prospective implementors about the implications of this court
decision,
You can't have the cake and eat it too Todd.
Bullying Xelerance by phone is not going to make a difference (Google
confirmed the ranting call was made my a phone number associated with a
"Todd Glassley")[*]
Which further document's why its improper for you Paul to be giving people
legal advice here.
Indeed. If I were to be giving legal advise, I would surely be charging
$600/hour
for that, instead of giving it away on public mailing lists.
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.
I'm a Dutch citizen working for a Canadian company. There are limits
to what Canadians (who don't do software patents) allow to be jerked
around with by the US. Remember RIM? I can see a connection between RIM
disconnecting DC from coverage, and the USG's role into removing DNSSEC
from .gov and .mil. It will be interesting indeed.
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.
Excellent. I shall await that information. Untill then, I'm not spending more
time on this matter.
Paul
[*] Either that, or by a comedian forging caller-id, though the latter seems
less likely.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
