[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OpenBSD behavior when duplicate IP address is enabled



On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 12:26:59AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> I agree with you on the aspect of competition, the project getting
> into legal snarls and I'm sure Cisco would try to do as you've said
> regarding gaining an advantage through forgoing a patent but this
> situation may be different. 
> 
I was mumbling.... My point is just that OpenBSD doesn't need to exhaust its
limited resource in "commercial" like legal engagements. It may be tempting
to challenge but...

> I've been in contact with Robert Barr and it seems all the email has
> brought the matter to his attention. He stated Cisco has no intent of
> legally going after people who implement the VRRP protocol. I've urged
> him to make an official statement to clarify their intent to the IETF
> like the statement made by SSH Communications Corp regarding SSH-NAT
> patent issues. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/SSH-NAT
> 
good indeed.  When such a statement appears, please copy to misc@ 'cause
I may not see it elsewhere.  When such a statement does appear in public
it does NOT mean Cisco abandons the patent. Though they might so claim.

Not in this case (yet), but it's very common for biggies to patent ideas
and concepts without any real implementations.  Once the net is spread
open, there will be careless fish coming in with good implementations.
Then we know the end.  Why? Because they have an army of attorneys and lacks
capacity of innovating as small potatos.
> 
> >> There's more that could or should be expressed but that's the basic
> >> concept. The problem is since it's still real close to the function of
> >> VRRP, I'm not sure if it's still a patent issue?
> >> 
> >Most US patents try to cover concepts and ideas, rather than implementations. 
> After trying to understanding all the legalese used in patents, I can
> see what you mean... :(
> 
> Although getting around the patent is possible, it's my nature to take
> the direct approach of solving the real problem with the patent holder
> and then with permission, creating a fully standards compliant
> implementation without having to worry about it. IMO, it just seems
> like the best way to deal with it.
> 
Good for you indeed. Just dont be one of the fish though. Permissions are
not enough.  Explicit legal patent cancellation would do the job.
I am not a lawyer or anything close (apparently a farmer).  Just read tons
of legal stuff produced by firms like IBM, which then boasted 800 in-house
attorneys, in early years, as a counterpart.

I am posting these mails just to serve my personal selfishness of wishing
that OpenBSD project survives me. In fact, I could be the most selfish
person on the list.