Hi Greg,
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:10:05 -0800
Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I understand the point you're making, and you're
> correct, that situations like these often don't get
> completely cleared up unless one of the parties
> charges to court.
>
> What we have here,
ovember 4, 2005 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: Fwd: IPR Notification on RFC 2462 and 2464
> Greg,
>
> I'm glad you've been following up on this, but there is a key
> point missing I think. US Patent Law is based on litigation,
> not regulation. The US Patent Office typically only c
ED]>
To: "Margaret Wasserman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: IPR Notification on RFC 2462 and 2464
Hi,
Sorry to follow myself up, but I have further information
which may be relevant to establishment of prior art f
In your previous mail you wrote:
There seems to be evidence though that
FTP software was shipping IPv6 code with SAA
more than 1 year before the patent was applied for
(August 1996 ship):
www.connectathon.org/talks97/helen.pdf
=> the first interoperability test for the SAA
Hi,
Sorry to follow myself up, but I have further information
which may be relevant to establishment of prior art for
IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconf.
The previous e-mails' description of existing published
documents may only describe 102(a) prior art, (As
described by PUBPAT's own information o
Hi Margaret,
I'm not sure how this affects the IPR notification,
but I've had a quick look at existing art available
at the time of the patent application.
There are existing specifications of IPv6 autonomous
address configuration in published drafts which
significantly predate the patent applic
FYI --
The official disclosure will probably be posted by the secretariat
shortly, but in the meantime I thought that the IPv6 WG should be
aware of this incoming IPR notification.
Margaret
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:01:49 -0400
From: Dan Ravicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Accept-Language: en-u
