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?