Hi, I have been told that Huawei patents date back no longer than 2001. This seems to confirm it:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=2&u =%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&s1=HUAWEI&Page =Next&OS=HUAWEI&RS=HUAWEI Also, David said "I believe the applicant is permitted to not disclose the claims for eighteen months.". Assuming this holds true, and speaking only of US patents, this seems to mean that the patent in question can not date back to later than 2004. In contrast, Google has a newsgroup post about syslog-ng and stunnel from 1999: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.security.unix/browse_thread/thread/d 125f044c5f8ba4a/6c87c15ddff26516?lnk=st&q=syslog-ng+stunnel&rnum=118#6c8 7c15ddff26516 I guess there are many more samples of prior art (e.g. during the formation of this WG, some texts I wrote myself in 2004, many more howtows pre-2000 and probably stunnel changelogs and installations). This all brings me to the conclusion that this is not only insane but mostly irrelavant. Of course, someone needs to object the patent if it is awarded (which unfortunately seems to be more than possible). The question is who will do that (and what it costs). But besides that, there should be no problem. What a rotten system the patent system has become... Back to on-topic: I think we can continue with -transport-tls, though I have to admit I am still hesitant to put too much effort into it myself. Probably those claiming rights should also do at least a little work on it ;) Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lonvick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-01.txt > > Hi, > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Balazs Scheidler wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 09:38 +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > <Rainer> > >> I think using a patented technology inside a standard will > definitely > >> hinder the acceptance of that standard. Especially if it > is something as > >> trivial as syslog over tls. So my vote is to put this work > on hold until > >> further clarification can be obtained. If that means we'll have no > >> syslog RFC, so be it. That would probably be the better choice... > > > > <Bazsi> > > My feelings are about the same. I don't really know the US > patent system > > specifics, how long does it take to have something concrete > about the > > patent? > > > [Minor note: I don't think that we can assume that it is being filed > within the USPTO.] > > It appears to me (and I'm willing to take more input) that > the general > consensus is that an IPR-encumbered syslog/tls document would > not gain > acceptance within the development community. > > I would like to do 2 things at this time: > > 1) I will ask Huawei to update their IPR claim to cover > draft-ietf-syslog-transport-tls-02.txt (the current disclosure only > covers -01.txt) and, if possible, to give us a bit more of a > clue as to > what the IPR covers. Specifically from RFC 3979, Section 6.4.1: > In addition, if the IETF Document includes multiple > parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such IETF > Document is alleged to be Covered by the IPR in question, it is > helpful if the discloser identifies the sections of the > IETF Document > that are alleged to be so Covered. > I believe that Hauwei does not need to fully disclose their IPR claim > but a clue would be helpful. I think that the section above > was written > that way so that it could be possible to remove or modify a > section so > that the document would no longer be covered by a claim. I > don't know > that this is possible in this case but I'd like to explore > that option. > > 2) I will ask our Advisor to give us some guidance on this. (Sam is > cc'd.) We agreed to a tight timeline for our deliverables without > considering that we would get hung up on this. A > recommendation has been > made on the WG list that we proceed with syslog-transport-udp and > syslog-protocol while we see what becomes of the IPR claim of > syslog-transport-tls. We CAN submit syslog-transport-tls in a timely > fashion, as per our Charter, but I fear that it would not be > accepted or > deployed by the community until the IPR issue is resolved. > Moving forward > with the other two IDs would keep our momentum going and we > could address > the issue of the IPR as soon as we can. > > Thanks, > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
