North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack.

  • From: Christopher Morrow
  • Date: Sun Feb 03 01:46:54 2008
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=7iN8SbXNP74uFCh5LJZvBa4yV/DEZ+XqDx52F0+9Jko=; b=H78UUzqUa69AeLgeYnK/4AJXxFyZad3Q5I0ysHOoz0jIB6to2oFgya1MnTFpf1eScXjwVSe5EhPPhQvP/qutfBvFHgYH/9Sq+BNJYJgLbzXZisXmV90IvybCsG3CKyfzwIx45Wi/Jk72IIE9Xg10CPeUYeBmwwb0qY06WU66Nhk=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=k+C7+UIpiqY9rqbTy4sUXrkiUVvwS3M1rTyrWVQOobBJU6qVUkBwjeHZ4tDV6LQBsGxJ2XnSYJdH27R6GVw6+kJ3rP+XrrhZfhcRytxQ7UsXY2EEp2xFb2orR9MDAWN/u0y44eX5liLYqMW21aBeUasrU3dhF5LR6QcqXxnOVHg=

On Feb 2, 2008 11:40 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ATT has no reason to pull their application, what needs to happen is
> that the publisher of the prior art contact the USPTO.
>
> If ATT willingly failed to note the prior art in their app, that may be
> a problem, but it isn't their duty to report ALL prior art, just the
> stuff they know about.
>

sweetness, hopefully Wayne or Verizon (they have lots of lawyers) or
Juniper will ping USPTO... or not, I suppose I don't care directly
anymore :)

> IANAL, but I have filed some patents, and reviewed a bunch more.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: christopher.morrow@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:christopher.morrow@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
> > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:58 PM
> > To: Tomas L. Byrnes
> > Cc: Ben Butler; Paul Vixie; nanog@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack.
> >
>
> > On Feb 2, 2008 3:39 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > The bigger issue with all these approaches is that they run
> > afoul of a
> > > patent applied for by AT&T:
> > >
> > >
> > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1
> > > &u
> > >
> > =%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=2
> > > 00
> > > 60031575&OS=20060031575&RS=20060031575
> > >
> > > USPTO App Number 20060031575
> >
> > Somene from ATT may want to consider pulling this patent
> > application since it seems to fail on prior art...
> >
> > http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0410/soricelli.html
> >
> > presented  by a juniper employee (Joe Soricelli ) and Wayne
> > Gustavus from Verizon. IANAL though...
> >
>