[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Josh McAllister" <josh at bluehornet dot com>
 To:  "Matt Juszczak" <matt at atopia dot net>, "Brian" <belstsrv at nauticom dot net>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Patent Rights
 Date:  Tue, 9 Nov 2004 01:51:18 -0800
I'm no attorney, but I do know this patent is littered with technical
inaccuracies, and very sloppily written.

Some of the MANY technical holes are:
From claim 1:
... sending a message from a user machine to a proxy server disposed
between said user machine and said global computer network, said message
to said global computer network including at least a first data packet
having a number of fields including a first field related to a first
destination address ...

Well... the first field of a "TCP" packet is certainly not the
"destination address" it is the "tcp_sport". And even if you give the
benefit of the doubt and assume they meant "IPv4" packet... still not
the destination address. So I think it's safe to say we don't use the
same method here.


2. A method, as claimed in claim 1, further comprising the steps of. 
We're not using the destination from claim1 (there is no such thing) and
in fact we're using a completely different controlling step which does
not rely on "said address" from claim #1

3.
said first destination address is an address associated with a web site,
with said web site being accessible over the Internet and said source
has a second destination address associated with the **Internet**

HA! That's easy... use private subnets. =)

4.
said web page information obtained using said first destination address
is directly accessible by said user machine, in the absence of said
proxy server, using the Internet.

Also easy... "said proxy server" is M0n0. Just make sure that users
can't access the internet without "said proxy server"

5. A method, as claimed in claim 1, wherein:

Once again we're not using any method in claim 1.

I could go on.... but I think the point is clear. I really don't think
this would be applicable.

The only problem is that someone would have to craft a strong enough
response so as to make it quite clear that there was no infringement,
strong enough to raise a concern of a countersuit for bringing such a
frivolous suit... Or someone with deep pockets will have to go to
battle.

I don't suppose there's any geek-law peeps listening that would care to
craft and share (GPL?) a technically sound response to these clowns?

Just my 4 cents.

Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Juszczak [mailto:matt at atopia dot net] 
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:59 PM
To: Brian
Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Patent Rights

Alright thanks!  If anyone else finds out anything about this please let

me know!

-Matt

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Brian wrote:

> Well, I just received a letter in the mail from Al Gore asking for
money each 
> time I get on the internet, since he invented it :)
>
> On a serious note, I googled 'acacia technologies iar' and there were
several 
> articles on this subject, even a few from the m0n0 mail list archives.
There 
> seemed to be more than a few people that questioned the validity of
the 
> patent claims.  You may want to check those out and perhaps grab a few
email 
> addresses of people who have probably gone down this path with these
people 
> already and see what they did and what happened.
>
> Matt Juszczak wrote:
>
>> That is total crap.  How can something like that be valid?  I read
the 
>> article, but can they really enforce something like that?  Captive
Portal 
>> technology is so easily developed and distributed ... What the heck?
>> 
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, C. Falconer wrote:
>> 
>>> Tell them that Bill Gates owns the patent on being an asshole :)
>>> 
>>> Or that SCO owns the patent on frivolous threatening for financial
gain!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Bryan Catlin [mailto:bryancatlin at connectgroup dot net]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 9 November 2004 5:41 a.m.
>>> To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>> Subject: [m0n0wall] Patent Rights
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I know this might not be the best place for it but we use monowall
for 
>>> most
>>> of our gateways and we have been contacted by this company that is 
>>> demanding
>>> lots of money per year from us saying they own the patent on the
process 
>>> of
>>> redirection and/or proxying.  I was wondering if anyone has heard of
them 
>>> or
>>> been contacted, on similar this?
>>> 
>>> Their site with info on their patent is
>>> http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/technology_iar.htm
>>> 
>>> At first glance it looks like they have a technology like monowall
but 
>>> then
>>> their pdfs go on to say they own the process and are licensing it to
other
>>> providers.  I am just trying to see if this is for real or not.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> Bryan Catlin
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>
>
> !DSPAM:418fddba844461419218040!
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch