[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents


Jim Thompson writes:
> I'm not an IP lawyer (though we have one who works here), but this
> >
> > > Both network ports have the same network address, making the
> > > device transparent to the local area network in which it is
> > > spliced. The device operates by selectively encrypting or
> > > decrypting only the data portion of a data packet, leaving the
> > > routing information contained in the header and trailer portions
> > > of the data packet unchanged.
> >
> > Would seem to leave IPsec in the free and clear (so to speak.)
>
> Not in Virtual Private Network applications.

Both network ports have the same address?  Local area network?

> It doesn't matter, though. The patents are invalid on their face. None
> of this is new technology -- this stuff is all very old. Prior art
> fully invalidates a patent.

Perry, it just ain't true that 'prior art fully invalidates a patent'. (I've
just had a discussion with that IP lawyer we have on-staff here.)

Prior art is a defense to litigation, its true, but it doesn't invalidate a
patent.

The only way to invalidate a patent is to ask for re-examination e.g. go back
to the PTO, file an application for re-examination of the patent, pay the fee
(I think its $1000.00 US), and wait. This is an one-shot process.

After you've filed the re-examination form, the original holder of the patent
gets to go in and point out why their patent is still valid. You (and your
friends, lawyers, etc) don't get to participate. You're only told of the
outcome.

The most famous invalidation via this mechanism of late was the Compton
Multimedia patent.

Unless you make this happen, you basically have to wait until you are sued, and
use prior art as a defense to the suit. Even then, until you get the case
decided in your favor at the Court of Appeals level, the case can be litigated
over 100 times, with different results. (I think there are 105 different
district courts, and in patent cases, they don't listen to what each other
decide (precidence.)

This will probably cost you over $1000 in legal fees.

Jim
Follow-Ups: References: