W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

RE: IBM patents tunneling HTTP through another protocal

From: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 15:53:51 -0700
Message-Id: <8B57882C41A0D1118F7100805F9F68B502D2CE54@red-msg-45.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'hallam@ai.mit.edu'" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>, "David W. Morris" <dwm@xpasc.com>, http working group <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
another example..
I think the product was eventually bought up
by cisco, but it was a tunneling software
package which let HTTP (And maybe tcp/ip in general)
run over Novell IPX/SPX.  It was inteded for networks
and desktops which are still running Novell networking
stacks instead of TCP/IP.

Another which has been mentioned is the tunneling
of TCP type stuff over VTAM and SNA networks.
A related (but inverted) protocol is from IBM
as well, DLS and DLSw, which tunnel the 
SNA family (LU62, APPC/APPN) over IP router
networks.
This also improves performance by providing
a routed architecture instead of bridged
WAN architectures previously available.

josh
----
Josh Cohen <josh@microsoft.com>
Program Manager - Internet Protocols
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker [mailto:hallam@ai.mit.edu]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:36 PM
> To: David W. Morris; http working group
> Subject: RE: IBM patents tunneling HTTP through another protocal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Jim Gettys wrote:
> >
> > > The idea, as I understand it, has been around for a long 
> time.  Examples
> > > 1 and 3 above apply most closely, that occur to me 
> without much thought,
> > > and long predate the patent application.
> >
> > But isn't it the building and describing of a 'machine' 
> which receives the
> > patent and not the concept or idea?
> 
> In theory yes, in practice no.
> 
> People inside the PTO tell me that since getting sued ten 
> years ago they
> have pretty much had a policy of eventually permitting any patent that
> isn't a perpetual motion machine or an anti-gravity device.
> 
> They have realised that the more patents they grant the more inventive
> the US congress believes the US people to be and hence the 
> better satisfied
> they are with the patent system as the cause of all this 
> 'inventiveness'.
> Also the more patents that are filed the more need other folk have for
> patent collateral to be used in defence.
> 
> A guy recently got a 'patent' covering the PEM hierarchical 
> trust system.
> The examiner obviously didn't read (or understand) the 
> documents referenced.
> 
> Folks may be interested to look at a current patent 
> application by some
> folks from OpenMarket. There is an international application 
> which cites a
> US patent application. By my reading these folks are claiming to have
> invented Kerberos, Lotus Notes and the idea of a proxy gateway.
> 
> 
> Needless to say I'm not impressed by such games. They cost real money
> in legal fees, regardless of how vexatious the patent is. The best way
> to develop a partner relationship is not to file a ridiculous patent
> by a long chalk.
> 
> 
> You don't have to be a patent attorney to realize that there is a lot
> of serious malpractice going on.
> 
> 	Phill
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 5 June 1998 15:55:49 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:18 EDT