Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list

From: "Peter Kay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 06:32:23 -1000

IMHO: as an a holder of a anti-spam patent pending, I think its best to
let IPR holders approach us. Otherwise you put yourself in the
unenviable position of "authority" on patents. If you just say "these
are the IPR claims that have been submitted to us" that makes it clean
and simple, not to mention easy to maintain.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:51 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list
> 
> 
> At 09:56 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, Bob Wyman wrote:
> >[..]
> >     My motivation for presenting the list is, in part, to 
> demonstrate
> > that the task of producing an exhaustive listing of 
> spam-related IPR is 
> > going to be much more work than it may seem. Frankly, I 
> think we're going 
> > to have to rely on the existing IETF procedures for IPR 
> holders filing of 
> > IPR disclosures...
> >
> >  [..]
> 
> Based on Bob's comments above, is there a need for us to 
> maintain a list 
> such as one that I have 
> (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html)? Or 
> should we wait 
> until the IPR holders approach us?
> 
> Yakov
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 
> 
> 

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

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:42:22 -0400

>and simple, not to mention easy to maintain.

In some cases this would not be true. Take MailBlocks, for example - they 
are claiming patents on all C/R systems. They have not approached, and 
since their IP is of very general nature, thus we must approach them to 
solicit a submission of IPR claims which is what I have done. Otherwise, we 
might be working on a standard only to find out that it is patented. As for 
the patents that are covering every nook and cranny of anti-spam, I am 
agreeing with you. It would be an impossible task to catalog all patents in 
the world.

Therefore, I am suggesting that we should have the following policy:
1. Solicit input from IP holders on very broad business methods patents 
such as the MailBlocks patents.
2. Request that all members of the group that have IP, submit information 
about it.
3. Accept submissions from IPR claimants that are not part of the group as 
they send them.

P.S. BTW, Peter, it would probably be prudent that you let us know some 
details on your IP. Feel free to use the template 
(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html).

Yakov

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:49:59 -0400

Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> Take MailBlocks, for example - they 
> are claiming patents on all C/R systems.
	They may be claiming patents on all C/R systems, but they can't
claim all C/R related patents... MailBlocks may have basic patents that
might claim some essential element of all C/R systems, but there are
still many non-essential elements that their patents don't cover. 
	For instance, one of at least four spam-related US Patent
Applications that were filed just yesterday covers a number of
elaborations on the C/R idea. The application I'm referring to is:
20030110400 "Method and system for blocking unwanted communications".
This application goes beyond the base MailBlocks patents to claim:
	1. The process of raising money by "spamming" people who use the
C/R system. What they are claiming is the method of sending periodic
advertisements to users of the system. Also, they claim the method of
stopping such unsolicited advertisements under various conditions --
including payment by the user of a fee to turn off ads.
	2. They claim a method of reducing the number of challenges
which are issued. For instance, if you send messages to a number of
users of C/R system and respond correctly to them, then the system will
"trust" you in the future when you send mail to new people on the same
system.
	3.  They claim a variety of methods and criteria for revoking a
previously granted authorization based on observed behavior. For
instance, even if you properly responded to challenges in the past, if
you suddenly send a high volume of messages, your "authorization" will
be revoked. Similarly, if several of the people who you authenticated
with in the past put you on block lists, the system will no longer
"trust" you and will issue new challenges.
	etc....
	Patents like this are trying to claim a large number of
non-essential elements which are likely to be implemented by those who
implement the methods of the base patent. The holders of the base patent
may find themselves backed into a corner... They may have a base patent,
however, they can't implement a viable, "feature-rich" product without
infringing on someone else's patent -- even though the other patents
depend on theirs.

	For the application discussed above see:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u
=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=20030110400&FIE
LD1=PGNR&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PG01

		bob wyman

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 18:17:03 -0400

On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:49:59AM -0400, Bob Wyman wrote

> 	They may be claiming patents on all C/R systems, but they
> can't claim all C/R related patents... MailBlocks may have basic
> patents that might claim some essential element of all C/R systems,
> but there are still many non-essential elements that their patents
> don't cover.

  Just how broad are these C/R ("Challenge/Response") patents anyways?
As a university student approximately 30 years ago, I spent a couple of
summers in the Canadian Armed Forces Militia (i.e. reserves), as a
summer job.  One item we learned was... wait for it...
challenge/response to let the "good guys" in and keep the "bad guys"
out.  I'm sure that any military college will have manuals detailing
how it's done.  This is an ancient military practice, and I don't see
why computer software doing it versus a soldier on patrol doing it is
sufficiently different to rule it out as "prior art".

-- 
Walter Dnes <[email-masked]>
Email users are divided into two classes;
1) Those who have effective spam-blocking
2) Those who wish they did
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:04:03 -0400

>sufficiently different to rule it out as "prior art".

Judge for yourself at the USPTO (http://www.uspto.gov) or take a look at 
these links (http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/cobb_patent.pdf and 
http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/heiner_patent.pdf).