nanog mailing list archives
Re: Postini, Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
From: Ray Wong <rayw () rayw net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:44:05 -0700
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 08:02:34PM +0000, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
JN> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:56:11 -0600 JN> From: John Neiberger JN> Postini's patent issue (do a Google search to get more info) JN> is suspicious, and _possibly_ indicative of a slimy tactic. It does look pretty ridiculous. ETRN, formail, procmail, Web- based UIs, etc. have been around far longer than Postini.
Yep, and NAT, PAT and stateful inspection exist outside of Cisco. This "need" by already dominant players to patent everything related to their business is unpleasant enough, but it's also common enough to make singling anyone out as slimy to be a bit disingenuous. I'd hazard to guess that a large number of folks on this list work for employers with similarly "ridiculous" patents. -- Ray Wong rayw () rayw net
Current thread:
- Postini, Re: Verisign vs. ICANN John Neiberger (Jun 18)
- Re: Postini, Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Edward B. Dreger (Jun 18)
- Re: Postini, Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Ray Wong (Jun 18)
- Re: Postini, Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Edward B. Dreger (Jun 18)