Re: Acacia Internet Access Redirection

No legal advice here. Just noticed a few things in their patent.

"If a packet TCP port is identified as 80, that packet is intercepted by
......."

Does this mean their software only works for port 80???

I also love the intent that is spelled out

"In summary, it appears desirable to develop a system which: (1) redirects
the browser to potentially unwanted content regardless of the capabilities
or configuration of the browser, and (2) requires the user to view or
interact with the potentially unwanted content before the user can freely
interact with any other content on the Internet."

Unless I am missing something they have excluded Nocat in their own write
up. They are admitting that these types of systems already exist. Wouldn't
NoCat match this description?

"Systems of various configurations are known to control access to a global
computer network, such as the Internet. Typically, systems block access to
predetermined content on the Internet, forward a user from the selected
address to a new address on the Internet or present advertising or other
information to the user before accessing the Internet. "

Again, I AM NOT A LAWYER. Just my observations and opinions.

Doug P.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Thompson" <[email protected]>
To: "Doug Parsons" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: [NoCat] Acacia Internet Access Redirection


> You might as well.  Your statement will mean that the message is
> targeted for discovery should this come down to litigation.
>
> Be carefull of giving legal advice, man, and remember that the Doctorine
> of Equivalents applies.
>
> At the risk of offending everyone here, this as a good an excuse as any
> to move on to 802.1x/WPA for gateway authentication.
>
> jim
>
> Doug Parsons wrote:
> > If a maintainer would drop me a personal email, I would like to point
out
> > some additional differences that might help. I would post them but don't
> > want to give away any ammunition.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Jacob S. Barrett" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:00 PM
> > Subject: [NoCat] Acacia Internet Access Redirection
> >
> >
> >
> >>Today I received an information packet from Acacia Technologies Group
> >>informing me that I was in volation of their patent on "IAR" [1].  IAR
is
> >
> > a
> >
> >>US Patent 6,226,677 [2].  That packet suggest that I must license their
> >>technology or face legal action.  Has anyone else received this same
> >>extortion letter?
> >>
> >>The claims the the patent text lead me to believe they don't have much
to
> >>stand on.  If I read the abstract and claim one correctly then it
doesn't
> >>cover a system that doesn't change the destination address.  Any
solution
> >>that uses the IPFW fwd [3] rule would not modify the destination address
> >
> > and
> >
> >>therefore does not meet claim 1.  I'm I correct in my logic?
> >>
> >>What are your takes on this matter?
> >>
> >>References:
> >>1) http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/technology_iar.htm
> >>2)
> >>
> >
> >
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,226,677.WKU.&OS=PN/6,226,677&RS=PN/6,226,677
> >
> >>3)
> >>
> >
> >
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipfw&apropos=0&sektion=0&manpath=FreeBSD+4.10-stable&format=html
> >
> >>-- 
> >>Jacob S. Barrett
> >>Chief Technology Officer
> >>PogoZone LLC
> >>
> >>  email: [email protected]
> >>    web: www.pogozone.com
> >>  voice: 360-676-8772
> >>    fax: 360-733-3941
> >>address: 114 W. Magnolia Street Suite 417
> >>         Bellingham, Washington 98225
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>NoCat mailing list
> >>[email protected]
> >>http://lists.nocat.net/mailman/listinfo/nocat
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NoCat mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.nocat.net/mailman/listinfo/nocat
>
>