Re: [idn] Walid inc. patent news.

[Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>]

At/À 09:19 2001-04-26 -0700, Dave Crocker you wrote/vous écriviez:
>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.

this cannot be.

Marc.

>  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
>