Re: [idn] i-DNS.net Patent Filing

["Ketan Patel" <ketan@neteka.com>]

I think it is about time that both co-chairs disclose any commercial
interest including intellectual property interests in this area. From the
beginning I have raised my concerns with others about having people with
commercial interest in the position of co-chair. I insisted that a co-chair
should be unbiased and not in a position of conflict of interest. I believe
that having a commercial interest in this area, by default puts you in a
conflict of interest as a co-chair. I believe in the IETF spirit of 'playing
fair with others' and this does not seem to follow that spirit.

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian W. Spolarich <briansp@walid.com>
To: James Seng <James@Seng.cc>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] i-DNS.net Patent Filing


> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, James Seng wrote:
>
> | i-DNS.net has filed for a patent which has been published by US WIPO
> | wrt to multilingual domain names. A notice as below has been sent to
> | the IETF secretariate as per RFC2026 rules last week. This is already
> | been reflected on http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html.
>
>   The PCT application for this is WO 00/50966, publication date
> 31.08.2000, which can be viewed at:
>
>
http://pctgazette.wipo.int/cgi-bin/ifetch5?ENG+PCT-352000+2+1-REVERSE+0+0+11
18+F-ENG-0+1+1+1+25+11000000+i%2ddns
>
http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/bnsviewer?CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD&PN=WO0050966&ID=WO
+++0050966A2+I+
>
>   The latter URL provides access to the full text of the application in
> PDF format.
>
>   For those who might not be familiar with the patent process, the
> publishing of the PCT application is an automatic part of the
> international patent application process, and represents only disclosure
> of the patent request, and not the actual issuance of a patent.  Patents
> are only issued by actual countries, and it does not appear that a related
> patent has yet been issued by the US PTO (in fact the US isn't even listed
> as a designated state on the PCT application).
>
> | The claims in the applied-for patent involve using and detecting
> | multiple native encodings for IDN. Since the WG has not move towards
> | that direction, no discussion, emails, I-Ds in the WG is related to
> | the patent.
>
>   As I read the application, there are essentially two sets of claims (and
> arguably two separate patent applications):
>
>   1.  Independent claims 1, 13, and 17 (and their dependent claims) are
> all structured around the detection of the linguistic encoding type for a
> digitally represented domain name.
>
>   Claims 11-12 (dependent on claim 1) describe the ACE concept, which has
> been discussed in significant detail in the WG.  However given the context
> in which that claim is presented, I don't think it represents an attempt
> to patent the ACE concept itself (I'm not a patent lawyer though).  In any
> case, there is a significant amount of prior art on the ACE issue (e.g.
> the 1997 Martin Duerst I-D) and I don't see how this could be claimed as
> novel by the applicants.
>
>   The lack of an international search report I also find interesting.  I
> would be curious to see what prior art is referenced against this
> application.
>
>   2.  Independent claim 24 (and its dependent claims), which described "an
> apparatus [...] capable of receiving a first DNS request including a
> domain name in a non-DNS encoding type and transmitting a DNS request with
> the domain name in a DNS encoding type that is compatible with the DNS
> protocol [...]".
>
>   I would argue that your description of your patent application and its
> relationship to the activities of the working group is disingenuous at
> best, and perhaps simply incorrect at worst. This patent application
> describes the i-DNS proposed approach to the IDN problem, which is a
> server-based proxy approach.  We've certainly discussed in the WG the
> issue of where IDN should be done (application, resolver, recursive
> server, authoritative server, etc.) and the issues surrounding transition
> and deployment.
>
>   In addition, I would argue that a co-chair of the working group can have
> real influence over the direction of the discussion of that working group,
> so to say that "the working group discussions do not anticipate our patent
> application" is a complete oversimplification.
>
>   I'm not trying to be attacking here, but I do feel that the patent as
> described in the PCT application is quite relevant to the discussion at
> hand.  I have to assume that you were aware of this pending application
> sooner, given that you are named as a co-inventor.  My understanding of
> the IETF rules is that one was obliged to disclose any pending or active
> IP protection that was related to one's participation in the working
> groups.  At best there seems to me to be a significant conflict of
> interest here.  I'm also a little surprised by your participation in this
> patent, given your recent comments to the list (Sun Aug 27) on why
> "...Software Patent [sic] should just ***DIE***".
>
>   It has been because of the IETF guidelines on IPR disclosure that my
> organization (WALID, Inc.) has not participated more extensively in the
> working group and its discussions until now.  We also have pending IP
> protection, and have been obliged to not disclose our particular
> technology publicly until our provisional protection has been issued.  We
> will provide full disclosure to the IESG and the working group in the
> coming weeks.
>
>   -bws
>
>
>
>
>
>
>