Subject: [Ntp] Dave's latest Autokey document

From: Harlan Stenn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:12:39 -0700

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[email-masked]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!

---

From: TGlassey-Earthlink <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 12:36:08 -0700

Great work folks, but there is an issue which has been brewing since the 
ruling from the USDC against setting the settlements for US6370629 and 
US6393126 aside. Instead of setting them aside - the ruling from the 
court had an unintended judicial consequence - it judicially perfected 
the plain text reading of the documents which is orders of magnitude 
worse than just setting them aside. It means everyone using the IP must 
apply California Law to it. That is the free-use restriction. If you 
dont want to apply California Law - you pay for the release. Microsemi 
has no legal standing to sell that release - they dont own the use of 
the IP outside of the ConfidentialCourier product.

That means everyone in the timekeeping world MUST COMPLY WITH THE RULING 
NOW.  SORRY...

What I am concerned about now is how we apply USDC 14-CV-03629/WHA's 
ruling to all NTP and secured PTP operations across all platforms. I am 
sure this is the last thing anyone wants to deal with, but under the 
ruling - all timestamping is controlled exclusively by California Law 
and IETF itself as a named co-defendant is tied to the unintended 
consequences of the ruling therein. The two settlements by the way - tie 
this and every other timestamping use model tied to any network event 
including remote-time-delivery to that patent and its silly settlement 
which today controls all timesetting as well as time controlled events.

//TSG

On 09/13/2017 07:12 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 12:19:51 +0000

Is there anything for us to do other than for someone to write an IPR disclosure?

---

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:24:22 +0000

Folks,

There is a long history of legal action between Todd Glassey, Microsemi, and the IETF. I have forwarded Todd’s email to IETF leadership for guidance. At this time, there is nothing for us to respond to.

Karen

On Sep 15, 2017, at 8:19 AM, Salz, Rich <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

_______________________________________________
ntp mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp

---

From: TGlassey-Earthlink <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:35:51 -0700

Rich - I think that an IPR is appropriate but the reality folks is the 
ruling came down from the USDC - 14-CV-03629/WHA  and it effects the NTP 
EULA radically. That requires the Licensing to be radically changed. IT 
IS NOT NEGOTIABLE - THE COURT RULING IS DONE AND IETF WAS RIGHT THERE AS 
DIRECT PARTY TO THE RULING. No product providing a set of services which 
use US6370629 may operate outside the laws of the State of California. 
Its right in Alsup's ruling affirming that clause in the Settlement and 
its enforcement standing. (Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc) objected - in 
fact Apple pushed to stop all review of the Settlements in all forms as 
did Microsoft and others.

The judge supported their demands and he refused to set that settlement 
aside. He then  dismissed the case with prejudice meaning no one of 
those or any other party really can challenge the requirements in 
Section 8 of the settlement. This had an UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE which 
today forces the application of the State of California Laws to all 
timestamping from US6370629 or its 269 derivatives or US6393126 or its 
105 derivatives.

Because of the ruling, this changed the licensing you may provide to any 
third party to being controlled by Section 8 of the US6370629 Settlement 
and specifically section 8.4, 8.3, and 8.1 - the California Law mandate. 
As such the IETF License doesn't work. So you need to pull NTP from IETF 
because of the ruling and the Appellate Cases effects (9th 14-17574 and 
DC Cir 15-01326).

Sorry, but no... we are not waiving the mandatory application of the 
California Law clause to everything however vendors can buy a release 
for it. Have your lawyers contact us and we can set up a convo and do a 
deal.

That said, my apologies but honestly, we are the real victims here...

//TSG

On 09/15/2017 05:19 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> **

---

From: TGlassey-Earthlink <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:43:18 -0700

Karen - the USDC ruling is in. Sorry - you are bound to the ruling just 
like I am... 14-CV-03629/wha controls you as well as everyone using NTP 
when certain authentication and security methods are included in those 
NTP transactions today.  It also requires that the Licensing be properly 
changed to support the ruling.
And then there are the frauds - AU54015/99, CA2287596, EU0997808A3, 
BR9904979A, ZA9906799, JP2000-163379, KO2000-0035093 which make using 
the NTP Timestamping facilitation a crime in those nations.

Sorry - the ruling is in.

//tsg

On 09/15/2017 08:24 AM, Karen O'Donoghue wrote:
> Folks,
>
> There is a long history of legal action between Todd Glassey, 
> Microsemi, and the IETF. I have forwarded Todd’s email to IETF 
> leadership for guidance. At this time, there is nothing for us to 
> respond to.
>
> Karen
>
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>