From: Scott Nelson <scott(_at_)spamwolf(_dot_)com>
At 04:28 PM 5/11/03 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
>I finally found the actual patents ...
>
This link searches the archives of this group for that information;
http://search.gmane.org/search.php?query=challenge+patents&group=gmane.ietf.asrg
Scott Nelson <scott(_at_)spamwolf(_dot_)com>
Thank you very much for the links, I was not aware of any search feature
that allows us to search the archives and did not know about your earlier
messages about these patents. Once again, thanks (original messages
included below).
The question still remains even with prior art, who is willing to sue
MailBlocks to get these patents invalidated? Plus how long will the process
take if MailBlocks is willing to go all the way to Supreme Court? On the
other hand are these patents enforceable outside the US?
----------------
Subject: Not again - another challenge/response patent
From: jm <at> jmason.org
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:00:17 -0800
Newsgroups: gmane.ietf.asrg
This is ridiculous. Yet another bloody challenge-response patent. :(
http://about.mailblocks.com/press_0324_2003.html
... The Mailblocks service, available today, uses its patented technology
to eliminate spam ...
It's a simple challenge-response system. Nothing exciting or innovative
involved, as far as I can see. I can't find any patents in the uspto
database though. FYI,
--j.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott Nelson <scott <at> spamwolf.com>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 10:52:54 -0700
At 10:31 AM 5/2/03 -0400, Ken Hirsch wrote:
[snip happens]
>IV. CHALLENGE-RESPONSE
>
Mailblocks holds and is enforcing two patents on challenge response.
(US 6,199,102 and US 6,112,227)
This doesn't kill the idea entirely, but I do think it's bad form to
require something that uses patented technology without at least
mentioning the patent.
P.S.
I Hope the pending lawsuit will make this point moot.
Shameless plug for my take on the subject, and a plea for more prior art;
http://www.spamwolf.com/patents/
Scott Nelson <scott <at> spamwolf.com>
-------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: New take on emerging idea.
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker <at> verisign.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:35:53 -0700
Newsgroups: gmane.ietf.asrg
That is equally clueless since there is prior art to 1992 when the
challenge/response was used at MIT for the Clinton/Gore 92 Online Campaign.
However it is one of those cases where a patent does have a positive
social value by eliminating a technology that needs elimination.
Phill
------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg