Subject: Re: [Asrg] C/R patents

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:44:21 -0400

>From: Scott Nelson <[email-masked]>
>
>At 04:28 PM 5/11/03 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> >I finally found the actual patents ...
> >
>
>This link searches the archives of this group for that information;
>http://search.gmane.org/search.php?query=challenge+patents&group=gmane.ietf.asrg
>
>Scott Nelson <[email-masked]>

Thank you very much for the links, I was not aware of any search feature 
that allows us to search the archives and did not know about your earlier 
messages about these patents. Once again, thanks (original messages 
included below).

The question still remains even with prior art, who is willing to sue 
MailBlocks to get these patents invalidated? Plus how long will the process 
take if MailBlocks is willing to go all the way to Supreme Court? On the 
other hand are these patents enforceable outside the US?

----------------
Subject: Not again - another challenge/response patent
From: jm <at> jmason.org
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 13:00:17 -0800
Newsgroups: gmane.ietf.asrg

This is ridiculous. Yet another bloody challenge-response patent. :(
http://about.mailblocks.com/press_0324_2003.html
   ...  The Mailblocks service, available today, uses its patented technology
   to eliminate spam ...
It's a simple challenge-response system.  Nothing exciting or innovative
involved, as far as I can see.  I can't find any patents in the uspto
database though.  FYI,
--j.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott Nelson <scott <at> spamwolf.com>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 10:52:54 -0700
At 10:31 AM 5/2/03 -0400, Ken Hirsch wrote:

[snip happens]
 >IV. CHALLENGE-RESPONSE

Mailblocks holds and is enforcing two patents on challenge response.
(US 6,199,102 and US 6,112,227)
This doesn't kill the idea entirely, but I do think it's bad form to
require something that uses patented technology without at least
mentioning the patent.

P.S.
I Hope the pending lawsuit will make this point moot.
Shameless plug for my take on the subject, and a plea for more prior art;
    http://www.spamwolf.com/patents/

Scott Nelson <scott <at> spamwolf.com>

-------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: New take on emerging idea.
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker <at> verisign.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:35:53 -0700
Newsgroups: gmane.ietf.asrg

That is equally clueless since there is prior art to 1992 when the
challenge/response was used at MIT for the Clinton/Gore 92 Online Campaign.
However it is one of those cases where a patent does have a positive
social value by eliminating a technology that needs elimination.
Phill

------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: Art Pollard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:16:38 -0600

>MailBlocks to get these patents invalidated? Plus how long will the 
>process take if MailBlocks is willing to go all the way to Supreme Court? 
>On the other hand are these patents enforceable outside the US?

Patents are typically not very hard to challenge as I recall.  I think that 
they may be challenged simply by providing prior art to a patent 
examiner.  Sure, it can go through the courts as well but I think given 
prior art, a patent examiner is capable of invalidating the patent as well.

It has been awhile since I looked at this stuff so you would want to check 
the accuracy but that is what I recall.

-Art

-- 
Art Pollard
http://www.lextek.com/
Suppliers of High Performance Text Retrieval Engines.