Subject: Legal Notice on RFC3161 Uses and their possible infringement against Glassey/Mcneil Patents(et al).

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:28:52 -0800

Lets talk about legal stuff for a minute... and I don't really need anyone
to respond to this unless they want to do so with my lawyers.

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

Be advised that I am claiming there is an unauthorized identified use of
RFC3161 that appears to violate parts of the Glassey/McNeil Timestamping
patent ("Controlling Access to Stored Information" - US 6370629 and EP
0997808, et al).  As such, I am formally putting the IETF/IESG on notice
thereof.

Further, these same uses may also violate any number of other "Receipt"
patents issued (including, but not limited to, the original Fisher and Haber
patents; those of others in the Time Management and in the XML
Receipt Business), as well as other patents still in the works.

In light of this notification, please be aware that it is the responsibility
of the developers to do proper diligence prior to releasing commercial or
free services using RFC3161 as its base.

Be advised that we are currently very concerned. If any such RFC3161
application is used for evidentiary purposes or if it is used to enable
control of any access to any data, or data in any record structure,
such use may be in violation of these globally issued patents.

Obviously, in instances where such violation is evident, we will take swift
legal steps to protect our patent(s) while preventing any further
unauthorized use. This would include any violations and damages resulting
from all those responsible, even National Governments using RFC3161 for
commercial and audit purposes (including the EU and its member States).

Please feel free to have the IETF's or IESG's or any other appropriate
attorney (or Developers wishing to avoid the legal complications of an
authorized use) contact me regarding this matter for my point of service so
appropriate licensing can be arranged to protect these patents against such
infringement involving those Developer's Application Systems .

Todd Glassey
Patent Rights Owner and Inventor -US 6370629

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:20:42 -0500

Folks,

Attached is the abstract for Todd's latest patent in this area, which 
he alluded to in his posting to this list.

Since RFC 3161 makes no mention of using time stamp info for access 
control, the likelihood of this RFC infringing seems questionable to 
me, but that, of course is not a legal opinion.

If Todd wanted to follow established IETF procedure, as per RFC 2606 
he should have sent this message to [email-masked]. In fact Todd 
did post such a message for his previous IPR assertions in this 
general area, but maybe he didn't feel that such posting had 
sufficient dramatic effect.

Steve
-------

Controlling access to stored information based on geographical 
location and  date and time

Abstract

Access to stored information by a user is controlled by comparing an 
actual  geographic position and/or an actual date/time with a 
geographic region  and/or a date/time interval within which access to 
the stored information  is authorized. The actual geographic position 
where the stored information  is located, and the actual date/time 
can be determined, for example, based  on signals received at a 
receiver supplying reliable position and time  information, such as a 
GPS receiver. Access to the stored information is  authorized if the 
actual geographic position and/or date/time falls within  the 
authorized geographic region and/or date/time interval. The position 
and date/time information supplied by the receiver may be 
cryptographically signed and encrypted.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:57:49 -0800

Todd,

to be perfectly clear: Is this the technology IPR that you disclosed to the 
IETF using the disclosure filed as 
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/glassey-mcneil-datum-ipr-general.txt>, dated 
May 29, 2003, and no other?

Will you send in an updated IPR disclosure claiming specifically that you 
believe this IPR to be relevant to RFC 3161?

Standard Disclaimer: The IETF takes no position.......

                   Harald

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 00:53:43 -0800

Re: Legal Notice on RFC3161 Uses and their possible infriSteven - stick it.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Kent 
  To: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:20 PM
  Subject: Re: Legal Notice on RFC3161 Uses and their possible infringement against Glassey/Mcneil Patents(et al).

  Folks,

  Attached is the abstract for Todd's latest patent in this area, which he alluded to in his posting to this list.

  Since RFC 3161 makes no mention of using time stamp info for access control, the likelihood of this RFC infringing seems questionable to me, but that, of course is not a legal opinion.

  If Todd wanted to follow established IETF procedure, as per RFC 2606 he should have sent this message to [email-masked]. In fact Todd did post such a message for his previous IPR assertions in this general area, but maybe he didn't feel that such posting had sufficient dramatic effect.

  Steve
  -------

  Controlling access to stored information based on geographical location and  date and time

  Abstract

  Access to stored information by a user is controlled by comparing an actual  geographic position and/or an actual date/time with a geographic region  and/or a date/time interval within which access to the stored information  is authorized. The actual geographic position where the stored information  is located, and the actual date/time can be determined, for example, based  on signals received at a receiver supplying reliable position and time  information, such as a GPS receiver. Access to the stored information is  authorized if the actual geographic position and/or date/time falls within  the authorized geographic region and/or date/time interval. The position  and date/time information supplied by the receiver may be  cryptographically signed and encrypted.

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:28:14 +0100

Todd,

On March 26, 2002 you wrote:

"This is not completely true. The other claims of the Surety Patent were not 
struck down as were a number of other timebase management and control 
patents that still exist.

For instance is a patent called "Controlling Access to Stored Information" 
and is listed as EP 997-808 (5-mar-2000). It uses time and positioning 
information in concert and alone to provide a keying and a control system 
for evidentiary use and that of access control as well."

I have some difficulties to understand how this patent relates in anyway 
with RFC 3161, since the first claim of it is:

    A method for controlling access to stored information comprising
    determining an actual geographic position where said stored
    information is located based on signals received at a receiver
    supplying reliable position information, comparing said actual
    geographic position with at least one authorized geographic region,
    and permitting access to said stored, information if said actual
    geographic position is within said authorized geographic region.

This is however related to GPS, DVD or CD technology which is out of the 
scope of RFC 3161.

  .. but you are probably going to explain that I missed something ...

Denis

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 02:22:03 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Legal Notice on RFC3161 Uses and their possible infringement
against Glassey/Mcneil Patents(et al).

> May 29, 2003, and no other?

Yes

> believe this IPR to be relevant to RFC 3161?

Harald - I have always said that RFC3161 is not in and of itself the
problem, although depending on what types of payloads the user adds into it,
it sure could be. IMO The real issue is what  you do with 3161 TST's and the
issue there is  that I  believe that almost anything you do with these
tokens is going to violate one patent or another or possibly a combination
of claims across several of the patents since they have similarities. And
yes including McNeils and my rights to the Controlling Access  patents.

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:01:08 -0800

Re: Legal Notice on RFC3161 Uses and their possible infriStephen BTW will you or Denis personally write the check here when any Court finds in favor of one of us Patent Holders over someone else' use of 3161?

Todd
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Kent 
  To: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:20 PM
  Subject: Re: Legal Notice on RFC3161 Uses and their possible infringement against Glassey/Mcneil Patents(et al).

  Folks,

  Steve
  -------

  Abstract

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:53:26 +0100

Todd,

> Stephen BTW will you or Denis personally write the check here when any 
> Court finds in favor of one of us Patent Holders over someone else' use 
> of 3161?

I have been asking you a technical question, so I am still awaiting from you 
a technical response (not an unrelated question).

Here is my question again:

"A patent called "Controlling Access to Stored Information" is listed as EP 
997-808 (5-mar-2000). It uses time and positioning information in concert 
and alone to provide a keying and a control system for evidentiary use and 
that of access control as well."

  .. but you are probably going to explain that I missed something ..."

Denis

>     From: Stephen Kent <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     Subject: Re: Legal Notice on RFC3161 Uses and their possible
>     infringement against Glassey/Mcneil Patents(et al).
> 
>     Folks,
> 
>     Attached is the abstract for Todd's latest patent in this area,
>     which he alluded to in his posting to this list.
> 
>     geographic region  and/or a date/time interval within which access
>     to the stored information  is authorized. The actual geographic
>     position where the stored information  is located, and the actual
>     date/time can be determined, for example, based  on signals received
>     at a receiver supplying reliable position and time  information,
>     such as a GPS receiver. Access to the stored information is 
>     authorized if the actual geographic position and/or date/time falls
>     within  the authorized geographic region and/or date/time interval.
>     The position  and date/time information supplied by the receiver may
>     be  cryptographically signed and encrypted.
>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:31:49 -0500

At 9:01 AM -0800 3/26/04, todd glassey wrote:
>Stephen BTW will you or Denis personally write the check here when 
>any Court finds in favor of one of us Patent Holders over someone 
>else' use of 3161?
>
>
>Todd
>

I will neither write the check nor hold my breath awaiting a 
successful decision  on your behalf.

Steve

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:27:26 -0500

At 12:53 AM -0800 3/26/04, todd glassey wrote:
>Steven - stick it.

Yes another information rich message from someone who can't even 
manage to spell my name correctly.

Steve

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:56:27 -0800

read claims 27-29...

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:25:24 -0800

Re: Legal Notice on RFC3161 Uses and their possible infriThen your commentary and analysis of this matter is "worthless" eh?

Todd
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Kent 
  To: todd glassey 
  Cc: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:31 AM
  Subject: Re: Legal Notice on RFC3161 Uses and their possible infringement against Glassey/Mcneil Patents(et al).

  At 9:01 AM -0800 3/26/04, todd glassey wrote:
    Stephen BTW will you or Denis personally write the check here when any Court finds in favor of one of us Patent Holders over someone else' use of 3161?

    Todd

  I will neither write the check nor hold my breath awaiting a successful decision  on your behalf.

  Steve

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 18:35:38 -0500

At 12:25 PM -0800 3/26/04, todd glassey wrote:
>Then your commentary and analysis of this matter is "worthless" eh?
>
>Todd
>

it's worth the value that one accords to my opinions outside of the 
legal domain, which, based on rates paid by my clients, it fairly 
high ;-)

Since the "warning message" was sent by you, not by an attorney, I 
assume its worth should be measured by a similar standard.

Let's see, that would make it worth, eh, oh, I hesitate to say ...

Steve

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:44:24 -0500

Todd:

I am sorry to see the significant amount of message traffic that your 
message has generated.  I appreciate that you have made the community aware 
of this potential concern, and I appreciate that you did not ask for a 
discussion.  Unfortunately, a discussion has resulted.  I want to remind 
you and the other PKIX mail list members about the IETF IPR policy.

       The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
       Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
       to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
       described in this document.

Further, I strongly encourage you to update your IPR statement regarding 
your patent.  RFC 3668 provide guidance in this area.  Based on my review 
of the messages posted to the PKIX mailing list as part of this discussion, 
I believe that you have provided significant details in your follow-on 
messages that do not appear in your IPR statement.

Remember that individual implementors have to make up their own minds on 
the applicability of your patent.  Any legal proceedings that result from 
these decisions are not appropriate discussion topics for the PKIX mail 
list.  Similarly, continuation of this discussion is inappropriate.  RFC 
3161 is finished.  The only on-going work by the PKIX working group  that I 
am aware of regarding RFC 3161 is an interoperability report to demonstrate 
that the document is ready to progress to Draft Standard.  I encourage the 
PKIX mailing list members to focus on this task.  Any further discussion of 
this patent on the PKIX mail list is out of scope.

This thread is now closed.

Russ Housley
Security Area Director