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

Re: Auto-forward: Re: Network Layer Encryption History and Prior Art

To: John Lowry <jlowry@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Auto-forward: Re: Network Layer Encryption History and Prior Art
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:43:11 -0400
Cc: Jack Haverty <jhaverty@oracle1.xo.com>, palamber@us.oracle.com, tytso@mit.edu, ipsec@TIS.COM
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:29:27 EDT." <2.2.32.19960619142927.006bb9a4@dave.bbn.com>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com

John Lowry writes:
> I was the last project leader for IPLI and I still have one in my office.
> (Kind of booring without a mate - or a pair of KG-84s !)
> Many of the IPLI reports were unclassified FOUO and delivered to (D)ARPA.
> Would any of these constitute "public" documents for the purposes of
> establishing prior art ?

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that following the
enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, all unclassified
government documents that do not contain personal information covered
by the privacy act and are not germane to a current legal
investigation are public documents. My understanding is that the fact
that any member of the general public can get access to them is in all
likelyhood sufficient for patent prior art purposes.

Perry

References:

Re: Auto-forward: Re: Network Layer Encryption History and Prior Art

From: John Lowry <jlowry@bbn.com>

Prev by Date: Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents
Next by Date: Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents
Prev by thread: Re: Auto-forward: Re: Network Layer Encryption History and Prior Art
Next by thread: I need a file...
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread