Subject: Re: Compressed data type for S/MIME

From: [email-masked] (Peter Gutmann)
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:50:53 +1200 (NZST)

EKR <[email-masked]> writes:

>My interpretation of the history is that compression support foundered on 
>intellectual property issues. I.e. there was no algorithm which everyone 
>could agree was unencumbered. Since there was a desire to get the spec out 
>quickly and the issue was sticky, it was punted. I definitely remember 
>several meetings of the IPSEC working group where the IP situation was 
>discussed and it was distinctly murky.

This seems a bit odd, given that a completely unencumbered algorithm and free
implementation existed years before the web (let alone SSL) did.  There are 
problems with ITU and ISO-standarised algorithms (which seem to exist solely 
to provide patent licensing outlets for vendors, and which in any case tend to
have mediocre performance), but Zip/zlib has never had any problems

Peter.

---

From: EKR <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Aug 1999 16:01:14 -0700

> have mediocre performance), but Zip/zlib has never had any problems
I'm quite aware that there are a number of free implementations of
compression and that the authors claim that those implementations are
enencumbered, however, discussions with holders of the various
patents (Hi/Fn comes to mind) seem to indicate that they feel
otherwise.

-Ekr

-- 
[Eric Rescorla                                   [email-masked]]
          PureTLS - free SSLv3/TLS software for Java
                http://www.rtfm.com/puretls/

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:50:49 -0700 (PDT)

> patents (Hi/Fn comes to mind) seem to indicate that they feel

First of all, while the IETF prefers unemcumbered algorithms, they are not
required. The only requirement is that intellectual property claims be
disclosed when participants in the effort become aware of them.

Second, one of the basic principles underlying patents is that you either
enforce them or lose them. As such, if someone claims to have a patent that
covers Zip/Zlib/deflate, they should have been going after any number of
vendors of the numerous commercial and free software packages that use these
algorithms. The fact that no such action has been taken (it would generate tons
of publicity if it had) is a strong indicator that either no such patent
exists, or if it is does it is no longer enforeable, people's "feelings"
about the matter notwithstanding.

Third, one of the tactics commonly used in this game is to create FUD over
what's patented and what is not. As such, it is quite common to hear second
or third-hand assertions that so and so or such and such has a patent that
covers various things when in fact no such patent exists (and in some cases
no such assertions have been made).

So, if you know of a specific patent that you believe covers deflate, or of a
specific public statement made by someone that they have such a patent, please
step up to the plate and say exactly what it is so we can evaluate it. This is
a technical forum and rumor and innuendo have no place here.

				Ned

---

From: "Phillip M Hallam-Baker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 11:23:49 -0400

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

> enforce them or lose them. 

This is not the case for patent law. It is central to trademark doctrine
but the application in patent law is not fundamental.

It is possible to claim that a patent holder willfully failed to enforce 
the patent with the intention of encouraging people to infringe it and 
that by doing so the patent holder created a public license.

The contract structures by which patents are licensed but not sold
create a number of arguable defenses.

It is also possible to put the patent holder on notice and to force
them to defend a claim or loose it - a tactic which could probably
be used to effect by the Internet community to sink certain patants
whose holders pockets are far from deep.

The principle game with patents however is to use the threat of
litigation to extort payments. In the UK this game is illegal, as the
owner of a certain US trademark discovered when they attempted to
grab a domain name from a UK company and found themselves paying a
considerable sum in damages.

In the middle ages this type of thing was rife. I think it was
called barratry but the term has a somewhat more specific meaning 
today. In any case Dante suggested a suitable damnation for such
folk.

		Phill

---

From: "Tim Dierks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 15:36:33 -0700

If I remember correctly, two patent issues were in the air at the time.
Unfortunately, I don't remember the companies involved.

  1) A patent involving compressing records individually, rather than a
single compression stream for the communication (or was it vice-versa?).

  2) A patent which covered compressing and encrypting (or encrypting while
compressing, or something).

I'm sure that with investigation, either of these could have been researched
and disposed of and/or worked around, but the basic fact was that noone
really cared enough about compression at the time to invest the effort.
Given that the spec was designed in such a way as to allow us to put the
issue off, that inevitably occured.

 - Tim

Tim Dierks
VP of Engineering, Certicom
[email-masked]
510.780.5409 [Hayward] -- 905.501.3791 [Mississauga]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of EKR
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 4:01 PM
> To: Peter Gutmann
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Compressed data type for S/MIME
>
>