> From: Henning Schulzrinne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To combine the two long-running threads: The solution to the NAT problem
> is obvious - we need a submarine patent where somebody claims rights to
> NATs and then charges so much for licensing that it makes technically
> more sound solutions, say, IPv6, economically attractive. Indeed, I
> think we should get together a group of people to patent all the
> architecturally bad ideas (call it the "RSI group"), as they'll appear
> sooner or later. That will give us 20 years of respite...
Beware of what you wish for.
It's far more likely that there is a so not widely unknown patent
on IPv6, such as the idea of using more than 32 bits in an address.
If you can get a patent much more obvious ideas, such as
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?&pn=US05446889__ or
http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn=US06025810__&s_all=1#23 then
the far more obscure and (possibly?) more practical idea of a bigger
transport layer address is surely patentable.
For example, remember the Soderblum Patent that caused so much
grief for FDDI. (see http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US04293948 )
Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
