RE: VeriSign Patents on Registries/Registrars and other readings

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: budi@alliance.globalnetlink.com
>[mailto:budi@alliance.globalnetlink.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 9:20 PM
>To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
>Subject: RE: VeriSign Patents on Registries/Registrars and other
>readings 
>
>
>
>> > 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.
>
>Scott,
>don't you think that those business mechanisms are so
>natural that there is no newness (great innovation) in it?
>Why patent things that are obvious?
>Don't you think that it is a bad faith?
>
>I like public domain: for the benefit of people.
>People who drive this deserve our respect.
>
>Now, would any of what we are doing (or planning on doing)
>here create a problem for us? (not "respecting" NSI patents?)

I'm not going to debate the merits or detriments of patents.  Each of the
drafts I've written are in full conformance with all provisions of Section
10 of RFC2026, and I continue to claim that there are NO VeriSign or NSI
patent issues that will impede the chartered work of this WG.  Whether or
not the applications have an impact on building registries or registrars is
another matter, and I don't believe that matter is an issue for the WG.

<Scott/>