Subject: RE: [Asrg] C/R patents

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:35:10 -0400

I am not a big fan of software or business method patents so I am not 
really planning on defending these people. However, what you are referring 
you is known as "prior art". The problem with patents is that a patent is 
presumed valid once issued and must be challenged through the court system 
in order to invalidate it. Now, MailBlocks, seems to be "trigger happy" 
about suing people and I thought that the group should be aware of the 
patents and their owner's litigious behavior.

The question is if there are possible patents involved even though there 
might be prior art in place, who is willing to go ahead and sue the owners? 
And in regards to ourselves, will the possible legal liability or licensing 
fees, make companies and admins think twice before installing any kind of 
C/R system?

Just some thoughts,
Yakov

>From: "Eric Dean" <[email-masked]>
>
>I am by no means a patent expert, however, I do know that a patent can be
>disputed if one can prove that an invention was created by someone else
>before the patent was sought.  There are no shortage of frivilous lawsuits
>regarding Internet standards.
>
>I believe TMDA derived from C/R software dating back to almost 1995 and that
>other variances of C/R have existed.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Yakov
> > Shafranovich
> > Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 4:28 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: [Asrg] C/R patents
> >
> >
> > I finally found the actual patents, they are discussed in this story:
> >
> > http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists
> > /mike_langberg/5565050.htm
> >
> > According to the story both patents are currently owned by
> > MailBlocks, Inc.
> > The patent numbers are US# 6,199,102, filed August 26, 1997 and issued
> > March 6, 2001; and US # 6,112,227, filed on  August 6, 1998 and issued
> > August 29, 2000. Both patents can be looked up at the website of the US
> > Patents and Trademarks Office
> > (http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/srchnum.htm).
> >
> > Abstract of patent #  6,199,102:
> >
> > A method is provided for preventing the delivery of unwanted electronic
> > mail messages to a destination client. An original electronic
> > mail message
> > is first received from a source client at a destination server. Next, a
> > reply electronic mail message is sent from the destination server to the
> > source client requesting the source client to complete a registration
> > process to register the source client's electronic mail address with the
> > destination server. The original electronic mail message is only
> > sent from
> > the destination server to the destination client when the source client
> > properly registers the source client's electronic mail address.
> >
> > Abstract of patent # 6,112,227:
> >
> > A method is provided for preventing the delivery of unwanted electronic
> > mail messages to a destination client. An original electronic
> > mail message
> > is first received from a source client at a destination server. Next, a
> > reply electronic mail message is sent from the destination server to the
> > source client requesting the source client to complete a registration
> > process to register the source client's electronic mail address with the
> > destination server. The original electronic mail message is only
> > sent from
> > the destination server to the destination client when the source client
> > properly registers the source client's electronic mail address.
> >
> > The second one seems to cover all C/R systems and that's what MailBlocks
> > claims in the news article.
> >
> > Yakov
> >

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Eric Dean" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 21:59:39 -0400

I would have to say
a) We really don't know if we will "originate" anything here...maybe the
final product will deviate considerably from the issued patent..won't know
until we try
b) Intellectual property is not a new issue for the IETF.  There are many
big named vendors that wind up playing nice with their own components.  I
would have to ask the chair here to go up the chain and ask how such an
effort might impact our work.

You'd think my annual dues would mean that the IETF have some big name
lawyers on staff 8-)