Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news.

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

This might be a little strange, but it also might be worth pursuing:

In patent infringement cases, one way a defendant responds is to make 
changes to their product, to ensure that it certainly does not infringe in 
the future.  (Whether it infringed earlier is a separate question.)  This 
process of re-design is done in consultation with a patent litigation attorney.

I am wondering whether it would not behoove the collective participants in 
the IDNS working group to band together and acquire the assistance of a 
patent litigation attorney, and explore possible redesigns to working group 
specifications, to bypass the patents that are being asserted?

This does not have to be a formal working group activity.  Privately, some 
companies could  get together, contribute the necessary funds to the 
re-design group effort, and produce a revised specification that they then 
submit to the working group.

d/


At 07:11 AM 4/26/2001, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>On March 20th 2001, the wg co-chairs sent a request to Walid inc. about 
>the 6,182,148 patent. (original mail is attached). Walid inc. acknowledged 
>the reception of the email on the same day. Walid inc. responded on April 
>13th 2001 with a series of questions that were answered by one of the IDNA 
>authors. One wg co-chair acknowledged to Walid inc. that this IDNA 
>author's email was answering the essence of the Walid inc. questions. 
>Since then, we haven't received any new message or statement from Walid inc.

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464