IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> Mon, 17 June 1996 22:08 UTC

Received: from relay.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa18745; 17 Jun 96 18:08 EDT
Received: by relay.tis.com; id SAA25300; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 18:10:01 -0400
Received: from sol.tis.com(192.33.112.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma025291; Mon, 17 Jun 96 18:09:32 -0400
Received: from relay.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA08710; Mon, 17 Jun 96 18:09:31 EDT
Received: by relay.tis.com; id SAA25288; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 18:09:31 -0400
Received: from jekyll.piermont.com(206.1.51.15) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma025286; Mon, 17 Jun 96 18:09:22 -0400
Received: from localhost (perry@localhost) by jekyll.piermont.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA20222; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 18:11:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199606172211.SAA20222@jekyll.piermont.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: Host perry@localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Jim Thompson <jim@smallworks.com>
Cc: "Carl F. Muckenhirn" <cfm@columbia.sparta.com>, "C. Harald Koch" <chk@border.com>, ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jun 1996 16:31:40 CDT." <9606171631.ZM9762@butthead.smallworks.com>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 18:11:30 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

Jim Thompson writes:
> I'm not an IP lawyer (though we have one who works here), but this
> 
> > Both network ports have the same network address, making the
> > device> transparent to the local area network in which it is
> > spliced. The device operates by selectively encrypting or
> > decrypting only the data portion of a data packet, leaving the
> > routing information contained in the header and trailer portions
> > of the data packet unchanged.
> 
> Would seem to leave IPsec in the free and clear (so to speak.)

Not in Virtual Private Network applications.

It doesn't matter, though. The patents are invalid on their face. None
of this is new technology -- this stuff is all very old. Prior art
fully invalidates a patent.

.pm

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status