Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol

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

Antonio - I will respond to this personally to you off the main list. lets
not waste the list's traffic on this anymore

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Lioy" <lioy@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>; <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Lynn St.Amour"
<st.amour@xxxxxxxx>; <poised@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol


>
> 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 -
> >
> > 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?
>
> All this discussion appears to be strongly biased towards the US
> approach to patents.
> However, Internet is an international entity and RFC-3161 has a much
> wider application than just to US companies.
> I note that in Europe at least EESSI, ETSI and the Italian government
> are suggesting or mandating the use of timestamps and RFC-3161 is the
> de-facto standard in this field.
> In general, the US patents are not valid in other countries unless they
> have been registered *prior* to pubblication (as well shown by the RSA
> patent in the last 30 years). So we strongly think that RFC-3161 is
> providing a good service for all these other countries and we leave to
> US citizens, companies and courts the discussion if the mentioned
> patents hold or not. For the vast majority of Internet the answer is
> simply NO!
> So please Todd, take this case to courts and leave Internet be free to
> set up a good technical standard to be used at least in that part of the
> world outside US.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antonio Lioy
>