[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] i-DNS.net Patent Filing
- To: "Brian W. Spolarich" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [idn] i-DNS.net Patent Filing
- From: James Seng <James@Seng.cc>
- Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:17:57 +0800
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivery-date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:44:07 -0700
- Envelope-to: email@example.com
"Brian W. Spolarich" wrote:
> 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.
I dont think you can pull a claim out of mid-air and discuss it out of
Yes, the patent is very specific to i-DNS.net approach to IDN. The company
intention is to have a preventive measure. We do not want to get slap by a
patent on what we are doing.
> 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.
IETF is a place whereby we have all our discussion in the open and if you
think been a co-chair has any 'hidden' power to 'control' the WG, well, you
can have my position. Serious.
No one can control what the WG do here, what people say and what was proposed.
Nor can you force what people like or don't like and into consensus.
(And been the co-chair has preciesly prevented me to participate in the
designing process which I rather be doing.)
> 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.
According to RFC 2026, subject to interpretion, yes and no.
Yes, because the patent is related to multilingual domain names.
No, because the specific mechanism in the patent was not discussed by the WG.
(the patent is moot unless you use multiple encodings...)
I am more troubled by this than you are. Whether I have violate RFC 2026 is
something the WG has to decide, not for me to argue.
> 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***".
My personal stand on Software Patent remains. I dont like Software Patent and
I wish it will go away. If there is no Software Patent, there is no need for
me to write all these emails, which is just red herring.
Unfortunately, I am not in any position to decide what the Company wants to
do. I don't own the company, I am not the CEO, I am not even on the board.