4 ms·

As listed in the article: https://www.google.com/patents/US6502135 https://www.google.com/patents/US6502135 https://www.google.com/patents/US7418504 https://w

As listed in the article: https://www.google.com/patents/US6502135 https://www.google.com/patents/US6502135 https://www.google.com/patents/US7418504 https://www.google.com/patents/US7418504 https://www.google.com/patents/US7490151 https://www.google.com/patents/US7490151 https://www.google.com/patents/US7921211 https://www.google.com/patents/US7921211

bmuon 10y ago
Could someone who knows about network engineering give a quick summary on whether the claims make any sense? I do mostly front-end and to me they look like "that's just how the Internet works".
- api 10y ago
  It almost looks like DNSSEC is patented here... :P
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Good call. It's broad enough to catch DNSSEC in a suit. I double up on claim to buy this company given its patents are on Internet foundations. Too risky to leave to trolling.
onetwotree 10y ago
The patents to me seem broad enough to cover DNSSEC, but in intent they discuss a DNS proxy that intercepts non-standard TLDs like '.scom', '.snet', etc. and routes them over a VPN. Interesting idea, but I don't see how iMessage infringes on it.
- api 10y ago
  It's probably the first patent, which seems to cover... a ton of things. Seems like the first patent could potentially cover everything from MPTCP to VPNs to any P2P network to BitTorrent to certain IPv6 transition mechanisms to certain kinds of MPLS routing to... There is almost certainly prior art, but it can be very hard to challenge a patent if the troll has already notched a few victories. If that patent really is this broad then its very very dangerous to the Internet. It could in theory shut down dozens and dozens of things, including some very fundamental ones that are core parts of Internet infrastructure.
mikhailt 10y ago
Does anyone know how to check if the patent was later invalidated? I thought I've seen some of the patents mentioned in the lawsuit rendered invalid by the patent office later.

bmuon 10y ago

Could someone who knows about network engineering give a quick summary on whether the claims make any sense? I do mostly front-end and to me they look like "that's just how the Internet works".

api 10y ago
It almost looks like DNSSEC is patented here... :P
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Good call. It's broad enough to catch DNSSEC in a suit. I double up on claim to buy this company given its patents are on Internet foundations. Too risky to leave to trolling.

onetwotree 10y ago

The patents to me seem broad enough to cover DNSSEC, but in intent they discuss a DNS proxy that intercepts non-standard TLDs like '.scom', '.snet', etc. and routes them over a VPN. Interesting idea, but I don't see how iMessage infringes on it.

api 10y ago
It's probably the first patent, which seems to cover... a ton of things. Seems like the first patent could potentially cover everything from MPTCP to VPNs to any P2P network to BitTorrent to certain IPv6 transition mechanisms to certain kinds of MPLS routing to... There is almost certainly prior art, but it can be very hard to challenge a patent if the troll has already notched a few victories. If that patent really is this broad then its very very dangerous to the Internet. It could in theory shut down dozens and dozens of things, including some very fundamental ones that are core parts of Internet infrastructure.

mikhailt 10y ago

Does anyone know how to check if the patent was later invalidated? I thought I've seen some of the patents mentioned in the lawsuit rendered invalid by the patent office later.