[71591] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Postini, Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Wong)
Fri Jun 18 16:44:43 2004
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:44:05 -0700
From: Ray Wong <rayw@rayw.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406181953080.6299-100000@a.mx.ict1.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 08:02:34PM +0000, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
>
> JN> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:56:11 -0600
> JN> From: John Neiberger
>
> JN> Postini's patent issue (do a Google search to get more info)
> JN> is suspicious, and _possibly_ indicative of a slimy tactic.
>
> It does look pretty ridiculous. ETRN, formail, procmail, Web-
> based UIs, etc. have been around far longer than Postini.
Yep, and NAT, PAT and stateful inspection exist outside of Cisco.
This "need" by already dominant players to patent everything related
to their business is unpleasant enough, but it's also common enough
to make singling anyone out as slimy to be a bit disingenuous.
I'd hazard to guess that a large number of folks on this list work
for employers with similarly "ridiculous" patents.
--
Ray Wong
rayw@rayw.net
