[Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property

Eric Stone <eric@telesocial.com> Tue, 03 April 2012 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <eric@telesocial.com>
X-Original-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C203F21F8496 for <enum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 21:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 7MnOZsQm+4SC for <enum@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 21:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5733F21F85B6 for <enum@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 21:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so5041053pbb.31 for <enum@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent:mime-version :to:subject:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=i9c2SCsTv7zwqi1fpAuJpB98C9KxcT2DWB/lq5+Ptog=; b=OMr2KS7LA4FtWQsOtZay3xPZvy++mCvkI4r3Jw5I3385cnwGgs0Vlnr0Eaodely6hn YaImGRoYxczuTmHOyDPu9X41Wf/rcxmY+rBdZmCPdRb1/rRkHmsUbBKTAzJgAsPMZS3U MayvYL1WfFB0a5LDGBbb/7i+LpRLqXsjbcZMi/TmcGBhr86OzoQtekq5rX2+pqxivx0c q19r4Q3c1642t+5sc0WwBPtVNX7eywfApXPGC7JOFbPWa+ouioNqFmR3ne3TrU+jodOM rm/p3VfDNMBgTC9/AVJkVhGoYLK6/bS+CMjmIj5PwijPv/7S3ULchrbHKkReenMjes3E 6+sw==
Received: by 10.68.194.198 with SMTP id hy6mr26601728pbc.0.1333428981535; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Stoneeye.local (c-67-180-81-141.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.180.81.141]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o9sm15473202pbe.60.2012.04.02.21.56.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F7A82F3.3010500@telesocial.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:56:19 -0700
From: Eric Stone <eric@telesocial.com>
Organization: Telesocial, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: enum@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000006060004000906000009"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5FFXsHLCom4XD5JCETI6e8ZcU302We8a8ppNnhja/Nhfbrb5jISI2fNorRhd72MspM44E
Subject: [Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property
X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: eric@telesocial.com
List-Id: Enum Discussion List <enum.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/enum>
List-Post: <mailto:enum@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum>, <mailto:enum-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:57:15 -0000

Dear ENUM Group,

In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt I have to 
raise my hand and ask to slow down.  My apologies first in case this 
rubs people the wrong way, I do not want to be a party pooper, but I do 
feel that this is my party.  Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM 
date to 2008 and we specifically did not publish to the IETF and have 
done the traditional patent protection around this tech.  Interestingly 
the latest draft is spot on --  which really begs the question as from 
what I understood, you can't protect an open standard and therefore we 
did not do so.  I don't mind sharing but the specific mechanisms 
described in the draft are in direct conflict with our IP.   We even 
built the server and have it in operation and are moving into trial with 
a major operator.    Specifically the use of any type of "sn" style 
records in ENUM / E164 and other lookup type db's would be in direct 
violation of our IP.