Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property
Eric Stone <[email protected]> Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:56:19 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.enum |
|---|---|
| Organization | Telesocial, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3696301199825568965==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------000006060004000906000009"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000006060004000906000009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.
--------------000006060004000906000009
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear ENUM Group,<br>
<br>
In reference to
<meta charset="utf-8">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times; font-style:
normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium; display: inline ! important;
float: none;">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. <br>
<br>
</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Times;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
font-size: medium; display: inline !important; float: none; "></span>
</body>
</html>
--------------000006060004000906000009--
--===============3696301199825568965==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
--===============3696301199825568965==--