Re: [dnsext] fun patent on dns-0x20
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Fri, 29 June 2012 12:43 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D6621F8653 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHzod0IuQxf4 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f42.google.com (mail-yw0-f42.google.com [209.85.213.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3144B21F86D1 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhfq11 with SMTP id q11so3225108yhf.15 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=kyzGF6tfzx0X07oekek+IMg6mUOJnmXNWkCe3QTswW0=; b=isQ4HTLP3H3TShCJYXmNGDFvGCIPrprpAzp3/df4EgVw+KnvJHQ0S9JfL1e9xWeb71 XZvJBl8dXTxKgjO2F+3hbEGm+1hFIp7ZwpWbR1/WGRhijhryUkg1FPuXpcQBvbKhH04G 4ffkZiGNpiV/e3m6c8VuZVVl+pTzJAc0eS0YU2z7B5BDOgvQOwAeiyOzVncKDTrTkj8h 1q/SwbrYjrtvOyxHL8dk8sStou9hGD1cWeyj+UqQQAjLXJiCWeFVEhSI7xP3vXP/7J63 WBOfpVw6/djURZQHvTncbgZ3gJjPvb507XHvFv7tjeQBodPRsa2NTrQOXFLBq0qd4tNW X4JQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.176.129 with SMTP id b1mr2220191yhm.126.1340973807686; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.147.33.19 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 05:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FEB41AB.1020804@redbarn.org>
References: <4FEB41AB.1020804@redbarn.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:43:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwgk1jdTvdxAinkVgDBYgnx43-MjryhBv2fj4A4nT1_O9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dnsext] fun patent on dns-0x20
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:43:30 -0000
Looks like someone needs to send a notice of prior art to the alleged inventor. When the USPTO started publishing applications there was a statement that the PTO would not accept any prior art submissions from third parties. The objective appearing to be to avoid the US system becoming like the rest of the world where public objections play a major role in weeding out the rubbish. It seems to me that this might make a good point to challenge the PTO on if people were willing to do it. The PTO might have a policy but agency policies are subject to judicial review. It is also quite possible that the policy has changed since the Bush administration. The idea that an agency can intentionally cut itself off from advice from the public when making a decision to grant a monopoly that might impact their business is rather strange. The patent lawyers usually argue against this sort of thing as courts are less likely to accept prior art that has been reviewed by the PTO. But that assumes that the PTO does not reject the patent. On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote: > olafur pointed me to <http://www.google.com/patents/US20110231931> which > describes dns-0x20 and was filed june 1, 2011. > > this is fun, since the dns-0x20 draft was done three years earlier, and > implemented in unbound at least two years earlier. > > anybody from "CHENGDU HUAWEI SYMANTEC TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD." want to > comment? > > paul > > _______________________________________________ > dnsext mailing list > dnsext@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
- [dnsext] fun patent on dns-0x20 Paul Vixie
- Re: [dnsext] fun patent on dns-0x20 Phillip Hallam-Baker