[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol


At 1:22 PM -0700 5/16/06, todd glassey wrote: 
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 -


It appears that Todd can't distinguish between statements of fact about IP issues and personal criticism.

Personal criticism would be more along the lines of suggesting that he is engaging in fear mongering at this stage of the standards process, perhaps because he tried and failed to block the advancement of TSP through the WG process, in IETF last call, and via direct appeal to the IESG. But even that observation is based on facts that are part of the public record; only the motivation aspect of the comment might be considered personal criticism.

The simple fact is that there have been many claims in the area of secure time stamping, going back at least as far as the PB patent cited by Todd. Some of these claims are quite broad. The more modern ones often make explicit reference to digital signature mechanisms, whereas the original PB patent does not. The applicability of any patent to the RFC 3161 protocol is a matter for lawyers and the courts to determine.

Mr. Glassey is not a lawyer, although he sometimes seems to forget that. Thus his assertions about what patents may be violated by a product that implements 3161 are not legal opinions and there is good reason to believe that they are motivated by other than simple, objective, technical observations, based on previous messages on this list.

As I noted in my earlier message, in the one legal case that is clearly relevant to this discussion, a patent holder who made very broad claims about time stamping sued a vendor who implemented a TSP-like capability in a product. The defendant prevailed, and the plaintiff had four broad patent claims disallowed as a result. I know that I am not a lawyer and thus not qualified to advise prospective implementors about the implications of this court decision, but as an individual technologist I did take away a positive message relative to 3161.

Todd's message ends with various comments about the WG or its members hiring an attorney to resolve this issue. This is not how the IETF, or for that matter any other standards body with which I am familiar, addresses these issues. RFC 2026 describes the IETF process re IP issues.

Steve