Let the PTO know of prior arts and keep discussing in the list as prior
arts.

-E




On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:30 PM, David Barrett <dbarr...@quinthar.com>wrote:

> Or, to be more accurate, some Microsoft chump patented something that
> was pretty obvious to me at the time, and probably obvious to a bunch of
> others.  More interestingly, he did it years after I open-sourced my
> iGlance application *and* presented the exact algorithm at Codecon, the
> premiere P2P conference of the time.
>
> It's patent #20080205288, named "Concurrent connection testing for
> computation of NAT timeout period".  It's abstract is:
>
> > Concurrent testing of NAT connections using different timeout values to
> compute a keep-alive value for the NAT device. Computation of the
> approximate timeout value is accomplished concurrently over multiple test
> connections within about a time equivalent to the actual NAT timeout value.
> The architecture validates the computation of the approximate timeout value
> by distinguishing NAT connection failure from external failure using a
> control connection. Moreover, computation of the keep-alive value is
> performed only once for a given NAT device rather than being an on-going
> process for that NAT device. When one of the test connections fails, it is
> determined that the NAT timeout value is less than the test timeout value
> associated with the failed test connection. Accordingly, a smaller test
> timeout value is then selected as the keep-alive value for keep-alive
> processing of the NAT device.
>
>
> This sounds remarkably similar to the discussions we've had on this list
> over the years (including very recently), and that is available in my
> iGlance application here:
>
>        http://www.iglance.com/
>
> Also, note that iGlance has been open source since 2005 -- you can
> download a 2006 snapshot of the code tree here:
>
>        http://www.iglance.com/code.html
>
> You can also see iGlance in the 2006 CodeCon schedule here:
>
>        http://codecon.org/2006/program.html#iglance
>
>
> Can anybody suggest a good place to record prior art (other than this
> list) such that if anybody wants to contest this patent in the future
> they'll be able to easily find it?
>
> -david
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com
> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
>
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers

Reply via email to