Subject: Re: [idn] Link to the Walid patent

From: Adonis El Fakih <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 20:06:22 +2000 (EDT)

Thanks for the link.

The information presented in the patent is explained very nicely, but my question to fellow IDN members is this. In what context are we looking at the Walid patent??  Walid patent assumes that each client machine has to do the work before it calls a server with mulitlingual name.  I personally do not see this approach as being a doable thing.  There are far more client machines and a variety of OSes that will make it impossible to get this patented approach to work.  Not to mention that any open source code will be stuck if it has to rely on this technology.  Too many legal loop holes, and special interest groups, have to adopt Walid's patent, and I doubt Microsoft, and the Unix OS developers will all use this, becuase of the legalities involved.

I feel a server side implementation is more appropriate for the long run, and to my understanding there are companies that already have technologies that do similar transformations and will work for international user, by simply setting up root servers that will resolve those names, and in worst case senario, the client has to set the networking of their machine to query a name server that can convert the translated string.

So again I do not see why we are discussing Walid's patent??  Even if we have a majority of people here feel that it is a great technology, no one is gong to fork a penny to Walid unless there is no other way of doing the same thing for free.  And the fact that oher companies already resolve multilingual domains shows that other options do exist.

I would appretiate any input from fellow members about this specific discussion, and what does Walid expect from IETF??

Best regards
Adonis
________________________________________________
Adonis El Fakih - Chairman, CEO
Ayna Corporation, World Trade Center, Suite 315,
Boston, MA 02210 USA

[email-masked] ßÊÈ:

> Here is a link to Walid patent # 6182148: 
 
http://www.delphion.com/details?&pn=US06182148__ 
 
Hope this helps.   
 
Shaun 

_____________________________________________________________
Get [email-masked] for free! 
We also have discussions, chat, links, and special info for collectors. Go to http://www.MahJongPlayer.com and check us out!

______________________________________________________________
Ayna, The Arabic Internet Starts Here.     http://www.ayna.com

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 19:15:42 +0200

--On 01-05-04 20.06 +2000 Adonis El Fakih <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I feel a server side implementation is more appropriate for the long run

What do you send in for example SMTP and POP?

I.e. IDN is _not_ a DNS-problem. It's a domain name problem.

  paf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 09:40:27 -0700

It is tempting for the working group to travel down a path, considering 
whether the Walid patent is valid.

Let me very, very strongly encourage people to avoid the temptation:

         An IETF working group lacks competence for such a 
discussion.  Nothing we can do will change that.

         Finding some patent attorneys who will say that the patent is weak 
does not alter the competence of the group.  Fighting a patent is ALWAYS a 
lengthy, messy, expensive affair and the outcome is NEVER guaranteed.  I 
said ALWAYS lengthy and the outcome is NEVER guaranteed.

         A standards group cannot afford to pass a standard that uses 
technology with questionable legal standing.  It confuses the market and a 
confused market will not invest in the standard.  Hence it does not get 
deployed or used.

         We have an urgent requirement for an iDNS standard that can be 
used immediately.  Choosing a specification that is known to be encumbered 
by intellectual property claims -- when the holder of those claims has not 
provided a documented commitment to handle the claims in a way that is 
acceptable to the IETF -- means that the specification will not succeed.

         Walid has had months to participate constructively, to find a way 
to handle the claims acceptably for the IETF.  Serious negotiations can 
take months, but in this case, serious discussions have not even 
begun!  This establishes an unfortunate but clear situation:  The working 
group must assume that there will not be an agreement between Walid and the 
IETF that is acceptable to the IETF.

         So we need to engineer a solution that works around their patent.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 09:29:53 -0700

Folks,

Since the idea of restricting iDNS to require only implementation on the 
server has been appearing a number of times.

We need to shoot this idea dead.  It has nothing to do with networking or 
the IETF.  If something is restricted to be within a machine, it is not 
networking.

Unfortunately, iDNS requires sending an "international" string between a 
DNS client and a DNS server.
That IS a networking activity, and it means that there must be a protocol 
between client and server, supporting that international string, such as UTF-8.

So anyone who thinks that iDNS can be restricted to a server needs to 
consider how the iDNS string shows up at the server.

d/

>I feel a server side implementation is more appropriate for the long run, 
>and to my understanding there are companies that already have technologies 
>that do similar transformations and will work for international user, by 
>simply setting up root servers that will resolve those names, and in worst 
>case senario, the client has to set the networking of their machine to 
>query a name server that can convert the translated string.
>
>So again I do not see why we are discussing Walid's patent??  Even if we 
>have a majority of people here

----------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 14:40:32 -0400

Dave Crocker writes...

> discussion.  Nothing we can do will change that.

[...]
>          So we need to engineer a solution that works around their patent.

it strikes me that attempting to determine whether the patent is valid
is very similar to attempting to determine whether a proposed solution
infringes a patent.  each is subject to the whim of some technically 
clueless judge, whose decisions are informed by technically clueless
patent attorneys, who are paid not to bring expertise to the discussion 
but to oppose one another.

what we have to do in IETF is reach consensus.  we might reach consensus
because we mostly think that our solution doesn't infringe the patent at
all, or we might reach consensus because we mostly think that our solution
doesn't infringe portions of the patent that will hold up in court.  and
different people can have different reasons for supporting it.

Keith

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 18:36:59 -0700

At 2:40 PM -0400 5/7/01, Keith Moore wrote:
>infringes a patent.

Keith is absolutely right. Assessing whether a patent applies takes 
the same set of skills as assessing whether it does not.

In the past few weeks, there has been a lot of off-list discussion of 
the WALID patent. One common thread in many of the discussions has 
been "our company doesn't want to be the first to post to the list". 
I have discovered another advantage of not working for companies. :-)

Many people have made the assumption that the WALID patent applies to 
the IDNA protocol. Until recently, I did too, based on a not-careful 
reading of the patent. After reading more carefully, I believe that 
the WALID patent does *not* apply to the IDNA protocol. Every claim 
in the patent talks about "redirector string" that is another layer 
of the DNS hierarchy (such as appending ".i" to the end of a FQDN); 
IDNA does not use that method and in fact doesn't use anything even 
vaguely similar.

Many of the people who are speaking on the mailing list have admitted 
off-line to not having read the patent. The combination of some of 
those of us who have read the patent saying we thought it might apply 
to IDNA and those who have not read the patent saying the same thing 
has caused many people on the list to assume that the patent applies.

WALID has never claimed that the patent applies to the IDNA protocol. 
There may be a good reason for this.

In the off-line discussion, every company I have talked with who has 
had their patent lawyers look at the WALID patent have said that they 
don't think it applies to IDNA. However, none of them wanted to say 
that first. On re-reading the patent, I now agree with them (and kind 
of curse myself for my cursory reading earlier on).

This working group has to reach consensus. We already did that about 
IDNA; then the WALID patent surfaced. However, unless the working 
group thinks the patent actually applies to IDNA, we should continue 
to work on IDNA.

If anyone who has read the patent would like to say why they think it 
applies to IDNA, please do so. Otherwise, I propose that the working 
group moves forward on IDNA and we ignore the WALID patent.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 21:38:26 -0700

At 06:36 PM 5/7/2001, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>applies to IDNA, please do so. Otherwise, I propose that the working group 
>moves forward on IDNA and we ignore the WALID patent.

hmmm. ISOC/IETF have hired council before, concerning intellectual property 
issues.  given that some technically knowledgeable readers believe IDNA 
does not read on the Walid patent and given that there are reports of 
patent attorneys holding the same belief, perhaps we should request that an 
independent patent attorney be retained to offer an opinion?

Probably would cost $5,000-10,000.

d//

----------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 02:33:50 -0400

> perhaps we should request that an

2026 is quite clear in this regard:
IETF does not take a position on such issues.
it's up to the individual participants to decide.

Keith

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 00:05:56 -0700

At 11:33 PM 5/7/2001, Keith Moore wrote:
> > perhaps we should request that an independent patent attorney be 
> retained to offer an opinion?
>
>2026 is quite clear in this regard: IETF does not take a position on such 
>issues.  it's up to the individual participants to decide.

I must not be writing things clearly.

I did not suggest that the IETF take a formal position.

I suggested that it hire an independent attorney to offer one.

And it doesn't really matter whether the attorney is hired by the IETF or 
by some aggregation of companies that chip in a few dollars each.

One could even imagine it being done under the umbrella of some trade 
association that has the 5-10K available, as long as the mandate and 
obligations of the attorney are lined up properly.

d/

----------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 08:42:17 -0400

> I suggested that it hire an independent attorney to offer one.

I guess I think that this would be so close to having IETF offer
a formal position as to be essentially the same thing - or at least,
too easily confused with the same thing.  The last thing we need 
is for someone to accuse us of a process violation over this.

> by some aggregation of companies that chip in a few dollars each.

I don't see any problem with the latter.  Nor do I see any problem, if
WG participants have already consulted with counsel about this matter,
if they forward their attorneys' opinions to the list.

Keith