To:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'Peter Mott'" <peter.mott@2day.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Jordan Glogau <jglogau@j51.com>
Date:
Tue, 01 May 2001 12:55:45 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: VeriSign Patents on Registries/Registrars and other readings
All: Yes, the abstract is OK but the full application would be helpful. Internet business patents tend to be process patents. Normally there is more then one way to do the same thing. If Verisign does things in A-B-C-D-E order then your company can legally do things in A-B-C-F-E order (highly over simplified explanation). Jordan Glogau Rick H Wesson wrote: > > Scott, > > > There is no bad faith at work here at all. If you took the time to read the > > applications, you would find that they refer to work originally performed > > 2-3 years ago related to the current NSI SRS, or they are registrar business > > mechanisms, all of which WAS done "in-house entirely with their own clue". > > They have NOTHING to do with ANY of the work being performed in this WG. > > All I had access to were the abstract, could you post refrences to the > full application? > > thanks, > > -rick