Subject: [dnsext] fun patent on dns-0x20

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:23:55 +0000

olafur pointed me to <http://www.google.com/patents/US20110231931> which
describes dns-0x20 and was filed june 1, 2011.

this is fun, since the dns-0x20 draft was done three years earlier, and
implemented in unbound at least two years earlier.

anybody from "CHENGDU HUAWEI SYMANTEC TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD." want to
comment?

paul

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:43:27 -0400

Looks like someone needs to send a notice of prior art to the alleged inventor.

When the USPTO started publishing applications there was a statement
that the PTO would not accept any prior art submissions from third
parties. The objective appearing to be to avoid the US system becoming
like the rest of the world where public objections play a major role
in weeding out the rubbish.

It seems to me that this might make a good point to challenge the PTO
on if people were willing to do it.

The PTO might have a policy but agency policies are subject to
judicial review. It is also quite possible that the policy has changed
since the Bush administration. The idea that an agency can
intentionally cut itself off from advice from the public when making a
decision to grant a monopoly that might impact their business is
rather strange.

The patent lawyers usually argue against this sort of thing as courts
are less likely to accept prior art that has been reviewed by the PTO.
But that assumes that the PTO does not reject the patent.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext