ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list

2003-07-17 12:03:02

We do encourage the disclosure of any known intellectual property rights in
accordance with the ASRG's interim IPR policy. However, we also discussed on
the list a while ago that this is not the appropriate forum to debate the
validity of any IPR claims.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob(_at_)wyman(_dot_)us] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:41 PM
To: 'david nicol'
Cc: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list


David Nicol wrote:
why isn't anon.penet.fi prior art?
      RTFM... Anon.penet.fi is explicitly discussed in the 
patent. The distinction would appear to be that this patent 
relies on computation to generate the "alias" addresses while 
other systems have traditionaly relied on translation tables 
stored in databases. In fact, the well known case of 
anon.penet.fi being forced to disclose one of their 
translations to the police is cited as a problem with 
existing art that this invention attempts to fix.
      For those not familiar with long closed anon.penet.fi 
site, I suggest that you read: 
http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/sep/helmers.html

      Personally, I think a much better question on prior art 
is why the patent examiner didn't consider US Patent 
6,356,935 and several other similar systems to be relevant to 
this application. I think the examiners may have been too 
focused on "anonymity" in the process of examination while 
not realizing that there were a number of other problem 
spaces which can be addressed with substantially the same 
method. The solutions to both the "anonymity" problem and the 
"spam" problem involve constructing "alias" addresses which 
are based on "real" addresses. The methods are identical even 
though the reason for deploying them and the words used to 
describe them are different.
      The problem here is that in software, the distinction 
between what appear to be distinct methods is often simply 
the way you think about the methods -- not anything inherent 
to the method itself. Thus, a single method can be described 
multiple times with completely distinct vocabulary. This sort 
of problem is not as common in the realm of "traditional" patents.

              bob wyman


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>