Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> Mon, 17 June 1996 23:00 UTC

Received: from relay.tis.com by neptune.TIS.COM id aa19782; 17 Jun 96 19:00 EDT
Received: by relay.tis.com; id TAA25991; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 19:02:20 -0400
Received: from sol.tis.com(192.33.112.100) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma025948; Mon, 17 Jun 96 19:01:45 -0400
Received: from relay.tis.com by tis.com (4.1/SUN-5.64) id AA10106; Mon, 17 Jun 96 19:01:42 EDT
Received: by relay.tis.com; id TAA25924; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 19:01:40 -0400
Received: from jekyll.piermont.com(206.1.51.15) by relay.tis.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma025854; Mon, 17 Jun 96 19:01:17 -0400
Received: from localhost (perry@localhost) by jekyll.piermont.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA20325; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 19:03:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199606172303.TAA20325@jekyll.piermont.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: Host perry@localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Jim Thompson <jim@smallworks.com>
Cc: ipsec@TIS.COM
Subject: Re: UUNET Network Encryption Patents
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:52:58 CDT." <9606171752.ZM10066@butthead.smallworks.com>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 19:03:47 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Sender: ipsec-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

"Jim Thompson" writes:
> > 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.
> 
> Perry, it just ain't true that 'prior art fully invalidates a patent'. (I've
> just had a discussion with that IP lawyer we have on-staff here.)
> 
> Prior art is a defense to litigation, its true, but it doesn't invalidate a
> patent.
> 
> The only way to invalidate a patent is to ask for re-examination

The distinction is unimportant for purposes of this discussion.

.pm