RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list

Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com> Thu, 17 July 2003 19:03 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17938 for <asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:03:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dE1U-0002yL-7Y for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:36 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h6HJ2ase011419 for asrg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:36 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dE1U-0002y6-4V for asrg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:36 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17930; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dE1R-0000kj-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:33 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dE1L-0000kg-00; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:27 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dE0v-0002sv-K5; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:02:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19dE0k-0002sh-Da for asrg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:01:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17915 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:01:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dE0h-0000kH-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:01:47 -0400
Received: from mail0.ciphertrust.net ([64.238.118.69] helo=ciphertrust.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19dE0W-0000k7-00 for asrg@ietf.org; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:01:36 -0400
Received: from ([10.0.0.6]) by mail0.ciphertrust.net with ESMTP ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:00:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ctxchg.ciphertrust.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <G7BLZ6P9>; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:47:36 -0400
Message-ID: <B1F08F445F370846AB7BEE424365F00D0188CEC7@ctxchg.ciphertrust.com>
From: Paul Judge <paul.judge@ciphertrust.com>
To: "'bob@wyman.us'" <bob@wyman.us>, 'david nicol' <whatever@davidnicol.com>
Cc: "'asrg@ietf.org'" <asrg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: asrg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg/>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:47:31 -0400

We do encourage the disclosure of any known intellectual property rights in
accordance with the ASRG's interim IPR policy. However, we also discussed on
the list a while ago that this is not the appropriate forum to debate the
validity of any IPR claims.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@wyman.us] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:41 PM
> To: 'david nicol'
> Cc: asrg@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list
> 
> 
> David Nicol wrote:
> >why isn't anon.penet.fi prior art?
> 	RTFM... Anon.penet.fi is explicitly discussed in the 
> patent. The distinction would appear to be that this patent 
> relies on computation to generate the "alias" addresses while 
> other systems have traditionaly relied on translation tables 
> stored in databases. In fact, the well known case of 
> anon.penet.fi being forced to disclose one of their 
> translations to the police is cited as a problem with 
> existing art that this invention attempts to fix.
> 	For those not familiar with long closed anon.penet.fi 
> site, I suggest that you read: 
> http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/sep/helmers.html
> 
> 	Personally, I think a much better question on prior art 
> is why the patent examiner didn't consider US Patent 
> 6,356,935 and several other similar systems to be relevant to 
> this application. I think the examiners may have been too 
> focused on "anonymity" in the process of examination while 
> not realizing that there were a number of other problem 
> spaces which can be addressed with substantially the same 
> method. The solutions to both the "anonymity" problem and the 
> "spam" problem involve constructing "alias" addresses which 
> are based on "real" addresses. The methods are identical even 
> though the reason for deploying them and the words used to 
> describe them are different.
> 	The problem here is that in software, the distinction 
> between what appear to be distinct methods is often simply 
> the way you think about the methods -- not anything inherent 
> to the method itself. Thus, a single method can be described 
> multiple times with completely distinct vocabulary. This sort 
> of problem is not as common in the realm of "traditional" patents.
> 
> 		bob wyman
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
> 

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg