Re: New patent info

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <392A357CE6FFD111AC3E00A0C99848B003694E0D@hdsmsx31.hd.intel.com>, "S
hriver, John" writes:
>It's going to have an interesting problem with prior art from RFC 1038 in
>1988, given that is has a filing date of 1989.
>
>This patent is for a toy.  One that would have been obvious even then.  It
>hadn't been previously patented because it was obvious and banally useless.
>
>It quite obviously has no relevance to IPsec.
>
>You can't even claim access controls, since routers had those before 1988.
>
>He's fishing.
>
>Use you judgement as to whether you want to spend any money on a lawyer over
>this.  At leas the IETF's IPR process is no longer so broken that this would
>stop all progress on IPsec.  (I once posed a hypothetical example on the PPP
>mailing list, and caused a complete panic.)

Agreed -- it's preposterous.  RFC 791 had security labels.  And the 
patent specifically notes that encryption is too expensive, which makes 
the relevance to IPsec dubious, at best.

		--Steve Bellovin

---

• Prev by Date: IP QoS
• Next by Date: Reasons for AH & ESP
• Prev by thread: RE: New patent info
• Next by thread: IP QoS
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread