- From: McDermott, Sean <sean.mcdermott@fmr.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:42:53 -0400
- To: "'Telford001@aol.com'" <Telford001@aol.com>, joshco@microsoft.com
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
> > hmm.. > > Wouldnt a prior work be tunneling HTTP through SSL, as > > originated by Netscape ? > > This is how https works... > > Protocol tunnels have been used for at least twenty > years. Hard to believe IBM's develop is non-obvious > to someone skilled in the art or that it constitutes a > new combination of old ideas. But the patent seems only to apply to: "a method of increasing the performance" Protocol tunnels for security/routing reasons wouldn't be applicable here. I guess tunnelling over SSL doesn't apply since there is certainly no performance enhancement. To prove a prior work you need to find an example of tunnelling over a protocol which dynamically compresses?? Does AppleTalk compress? Obviously there are other ways to increase the performance other than compress - to use a different protocol than TCP/IP.. Anyway, is it true to say, if any performance improvements are introduced *into* the HTTP standard, this patent doesn't apply? - Sean
Received on Friday, 5 June 1998 08:45:10 UTC