RE: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol

["Peter Hesse" <pmhesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Todd,

>This is true and I do want to see my patent's supported but I also 
>want all other TS technologies to get their fair shake in the 
>commercial world rather then being mandated by a standards org process.


I suggest you read http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

Proper grammar combined with ridiculous personal attacks will probably
get you farther than ridiculous personal attacks alone.

--Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of todd glassey
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6:00 PM
To: Stephen Kent
Cc: Ricardo Barroso; Gianluca Ramunno; ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx;
housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Lynn St.Amour; poised@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RFC3161(TSP): doubts about tcp protocol




----- 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>;
<poised@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:41 PM
Subject: 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.

Fear Mongering implies that there is something wrong with what I am
saying or that there is inaccuracy in it and that is not true. So in
this instance I again claim that you use your status as the WG Chair to
invalidate what I am saying becuase I am saying it without ever
invalidating  the statement itself.

>
> 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.

This is true and I do want to see my patent's supported but I also want
all other TS technologies to get their fair shake in the commercial
world rather then being mandated by a standards org process. There is
enough room for all of us here. What's wrong with that comment other
than it leaves you out of the bigger picture Steve?

>
> 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 can send you a copy of the transscript for the case if you want - Its
number 99-203 in the Western Dist of Va, Feb 1999. - Surety V Entrust.
We got a copy of it after I got the letter from Surety at Coastek about
my first timestamping tools so that when I started CertifiedTime in
August of 1999 I would know what was what.

>
> know that I am not a lawyer and thus not qualified to advise 
> prospective implementors about the implications of this court 
> decision,

Then why did you?

> but as an individual technologist I did take away a
> positive message relative to 3161.

That doesnt answer the question I asked - you made a public commentary -
what did you make it as? Please answer this question.

> or for that matter any other standards body with which I am familiar, 
> addresses these issues.

Then dont make broad sweeping claims about the legal status of any
submission as you have.

> RFC 2026 describes the IETF process re IP
> issues.

The problem is that 2026 is couched to prevent any liability from being
ascribed to the IETF and that is what you always hide behind. So until
you invalidate what it is I said Steve this is obvously just another one
of those things we will disagree on.

>
> Steve