Re: Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property

Duane <[email protected]> Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:39:27 +1000
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.enum
Message-ID <[email protected]>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============7204140889782082328==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------090904090607040208050207"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090904090607040208050207
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 04/03/12 14:56, Eric Stone wrote:
> 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.

e164.org was publishing IM and other social network information via DNS 
at least as far back as December 2006, I'd have to check the mailing 
list archive for specific dates.

And before it gets pointed out, no we didn't use SN, but that seems an 
incremental and/or novel change over what we are doing.

--------------090904090607040208050207
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    On 04/03/12 14:56, Eric Stone wrote:
    <blockquote cite="mid:[email protected]" type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
        charset=ISO-8859-1">
      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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Interestingly
        the latest draft is spot on --&nbsp; which really begs the question
        as from what I understood, you can't protect an open standard
        and therefore we did not do so.&nbsp; I don't mind sharing but the
        specific mechanisms described in the draft are in direct
        conflict with our IP. &nbsp; We even built the server and have it in
        operation and are moving into trial with a major operator. &nbsp;&nbsp;
        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.&nbsp; </span><br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    e164.org was publishing IM and other social network information via
    DNS at least as far back as December 2006, I'd have to check the
    mailing list archive for specific dates.<br>
    <br>
    And before it gets pointed out, no we didn't use SN, but that seems
    an incremental and/or novel change over what we are doing.<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------090904090607040208050207--

--===============7204140889782082328==
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

--===============7204140889782082328==--