North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?
> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:47:22 -0700 (PDT) > From: Henry Linneweh <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Subject: Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia? > > --- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <email@example.com> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote: >>> >>> --- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Petri Helenius wrote: >>>> >>>>> We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending >>>>> on the date they filed, prior art exists well documented. >>>> (blueprints obviously predate running code) >>>> >>>> everyone has gone patent crazy, every time a new concept is developed some >>>> company applies for patent. is this the future or rfcs then? >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >> >>> Well if it will harm the community, would it be possible to auto copyright >>> rfc's, so that the authors of a concept can prevent someone from sipping >>> their effort off? RFCs -- like aything else -- _are_ copyrighted, under current law. However, almost all, if not all, of them contain express permission for anyone to copy/reproduce them. Copyright of a process description, furthermore, does *NOT* preclude someone from -using- the the process that was so described. Aside from those 'inconsiderate' facts getting in the way, you don't have a bad idea. :) >>> Ignorance at the top doesn't mean we can't be like always leading the >>> way...... >>> >>> -Henry >>> >>> > >> one issue with that might be that the patents are >> taken out on variations of the >> core idea, imho the variations are not new ideas but >> legally they seem to get >> away with it >> >> Steve > > ok so then in the copyright let us see if can cover > all variations of the original concept as belonging to > the original author or author's as a test case for > adaption and modificaiton to copyright law. I strongly > believe in the protection of original idea's in > reference to rfc's Sorry, copyright doesn't work that way. The _expression_ the concept is protected. *NOT* the underlying concept itself. To protect a 'process', or 'mechanism', you are into the realm of _patent_ law.