Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Look Dr. Kent - the issue here is that you do not invalidate what I am
saying you just attack me personally.  If I am wrong I humbly apologize but
so far this is 100% dead-on by my take. So lets get to debunking your
commentary from the last response -

What are all these  numbers the rest of you folks might ask - Steve already
knows what they are - they are some of the many patents that any of you may
violate by building something out of 3161's technology and these are just
the ones listed on the references section of the eOriginals Patent filed in
2001. And - this is just a partial list - there are more, like mine
(EP808997A)
for instance, so rather than attacking me personally Steve - lets try this
again - how about disproving anything I said??? I don't think you can...

4200770 4405829 4625076 4853961 4893338
4981370 4995082 5005200 5136646 5136647
5163091 5164988 5191613 5214703 5231668
5276737 5315658 5323146 5339361 5363448
5371794 5373561 5377270 5390247 5524073
5534855 5555307 5615268 5699431 5748738
5987429 6023509 6070239

But lets keep this up anyway. As far as receipts based on the RFC3161
protocol, my take there is that the Pitney Bowes patent probably covers that
too, but if you think I am wrong  then maybe PKIX should  get a lawyer, or
better yet a Judge to say that in an opinion. Or maybe in this case the
authors of RFC3161 and their company's should be paying for having a legal
opinion rendered since they and you claim that the use of their technology
does not violate these larger-picture patents - Eh Carlisle - how
about it? Does Sharon have budget for this?

---

Steve - back to the IETF issues - You also made a comment that  implied that
there was no legal issues now that RE34954 was invalidated in court, and I
need to ask you a formal question - is this an accurate perception or then
exactly
what do these following words mean - for instance are you formally saying
this as the WG Chair or as a private citizen?  It makes a difference as to
whether you are personally liable for what you say or the IETF's
Organization is - notice the cc:ing to the ISOC Powers. So again, is this
you personally speaking or are you formally speaking for PKIX  and the IETF
here or as BBN's Standards person or just for yourself?

Your comment is included below for reference:

> - When Entrust was sued by another patent holder in the area
> of time stamping, 4 claims of the patent holder were struck down by
> the court, who found for the defendant (Entrust)
>
> Thus it is far from clear that, as Todd claims, any use of TSP will
> violate existing patents.
>
> Steve

How you possibly got that is beyond me - but it may warrant an ethics
investigation into the operations of PKIX. You seem to imply here that
because of the invalidation of the primary claim of the RE34954 patent that
all TS patents are null and void and that is more than bad advice - it may
have actionable consequences for you as both an IETF Chair and as an
employee of BBN if they foot the bill for your participation in the IETF. I
cant believe you would publicly make such a proclamation - The smart thing
to say would be "Todd I am not a lawyer so the WG just goes on what it is
told" - but your words have shown that you are actively part of this efforts
standards process and as such are probably too close to it to see it as some
of the rest of us do, a private effort to standardize something less useful
than a simple NTP Timestamp, so that two company's can corral the
Timestamping Marketplace.

If that's not a commercial effort I don't know what is -

But back to debunking your commentary - and that in particular is
the specific commentary that there is no such  information available
(i.e. a method of generating a list of applicable patents), which also is
untrue.

The only question here as I see it is whether the IETF has liability for IP
information codified into a Draft some number of years previously as being
"currently valid". That's the problem with the process - i.e. how does the
IETF verify that its IP data on any technology is up to date as of the last
publishing of the document - which is yet another failing of the current
RFC2026. or that the WG didn't withhold current data which is what
happened in this case. And since there was discussion of this at the time
that section was added this is clearly intentional in nature from my
vantage point.

Ahh - spoon feeding you your own garbage can be fun, but tiring Steve and
certainly not in PKIX's best interests - so Dr. Kent - lets ignore the
issues with 2026 and you explain to me with the many patents around
timestamping, receipt generation, and document authentication already in
existence - how is it possible that my commentary is wrong?

just my 2 cents

Todd Glassey




----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Kent" <kent@xxxxxxx>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ricardo Barroso" <ricardo.barroso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Gianluca Ramunno"
<ramunno@xxxxxxxxx>; <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>; <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Lynn
St.Amour" <st.amour@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol


>
> At 9:48 AM -0700 4/15/03, todd glassey wrote:
> >So Richard - what are you going to do when you get sued for building a
> >product that has NO possible use but to violate filed and reliable
> >Intellectual Property Rights - This is not just my claim - the original
RFC
> >now has a section that talks to its issues with commercially supplied
> >patents regarding receipt generation and the use of time data therein.
Only
> >it doesn't bother to include the XML ones or those filed and granted
since
> >the Haber ones it does reference became moot.
> >
> >This is the real issue with RFC3161 and its becoming a standard. It
> >essentially creates the first COMMERCIAL standard inside the IETF  since
> >there can be no use model that is not in violation of any number of
patents.
> >It also will IMHO constrain PKIX for what it is  - an old boys club
> >masquerading as a standards group.
> >
> >I see the ascension of 3161 as one of the saddest things that can happen
> >since it will permanently impugn PKIX and in fact may be the key item
> >necessary to force the deconstruction of the IETF as we know it today.
> >
> >Todd Glassey
>
> While it is thoughtful of Todd to express his opinion about the
> possible intellectual property issues that may be associated with the
> TSP RFC, it is also worth noting that:
>
> - the RFC makes note of possible IP problems in a fashion
> consistent with IETF guidelines
>
> - Todd himself is a patent holder in this area, and thus not
> exaclty an unbiased party
>
> - When Entrust was sued by another patent holder in the area
> of time stamping, 4 claims of the patent holder were struck down by
> the court, who found for the defendant (Entrust)
>
> Thus it is far from clear that, as Todd claims, any use of TSP will
> violate existing patents.
>
> Steve