pf -Legal Issues on NAT ?

["J.C. Roberts" <unknown@abac.com>]

NAT is just about everywhere but legally speaking IBM does have some
sort of patent on NAT (5,371,852) and has made claims/disclosures to
the IETF based on this patent for Internet Standards such as VRRP.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5,371,852'.WKU.&OS=PN/5,371,852&RS=PN/5,371,852

I'm curious how/if this affects the usability of pf for reimplementors
and if anything can/should/needs-to be done with IBM.

I'm already working on the patent issues (Cisco, IBM and Nortel)
surrounding the VRRP protocol in an attempt to get legal protection
for reimplemetors of BSD licensed code. It isn't going very well or
very fast but I'm still working on it and I'm wondering if such work
needs to be done on NAT as well.

I've already registered the OpenVRRP.org domain name and have tried
contacting the owner of OpenStandards.org to see if he'd be willing to
sell/donate the domain. I still haven't heard back from him but it's
been a tough week for everyone.

Best Regards,
JCR