From eric@telesocial.com Mon Apr 2 21:56:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C203F21F8496 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 21:56:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7MnOZsQm+4SC for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 21:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5733F21F85B6 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 21:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbrq13 with SMTP id rq13so5041053pbb.31 for ; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:56:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent:mime-version :to:subject:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=i9c2SCsTv7zwqi1fpAuJpB98C9KxcT2DWB/lq5+Ptog=; b=OMr2KS7LA4FtWQsOtZay3xPZvy++mCvkI4r3Jw5I3385cnwGgs0Vlnr0Eaodely6hn YaImGRoYxczuTmHOyDPu9X41Wf/rcxmY+rBdZmCPdRb1/rRkHmsUbBKTAzJgAsPMZS3U MayvYL1WfFB0a5LDGBbb/7i+LpRLqXsjbcZMi/TmcGBhr86OzoQtekq5rX2+pqxivx0c q19r4Q3c1642t+5sc0WwBPtVNX7eywfApXPGC7JOFbPWa+ouioNqFmR3ne3TrU+jodOM rm/p3VfDNMBgTC9/AVJkVhGoYLK6/bS+CMjmIj5PwijPv/7S3ULchrbHKkReenMjes3E 6+sw== Received: by 10.68.194.198 with SMTP id hy6mr26601728pbc.0.1333428981535; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Stoneeye.local (c-67-180-81-141.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.180.81.141]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o9sm15473202pbe.60.2012.04.02.21.56.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F7A82F3.3010500@telesocial.com> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:56:19 -0700 From: Eric Stone Organization: Telesocial, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: enum@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000006060004000906000009" X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5FFXsHLCom4XD5JCETI6e8ZcU302We8a8ppNnhja/Nhfbrb5jISI2fNorRhd72MspM44E Subject: [Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: eric@telesocial.com List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 04:57:15 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000006060004000906000009 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear ENUM Group, In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt I have to raise my hand and ask to slow down. My apologies first in case this rubs people the wrong way, I do not want to be a party pooper, but I do feel that this is my party. Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM date to 2008 and we specifically did not publish to the IETF and have done the traditional patent protection around this tech. Interestingly the latest draft is spot on -- which really begs the question as from what I understood, you can't protect an open standard and therefore we did not do so. I don't mind sharing but the specific mechanisms described in the draft are in direct conflict with our IP. We even built the server and have it in operation and are moving into trial with a major operator. Specifically the use of any type of "sn" style records in ENUM / E164 and other lookup type db's would be in direct violation of our IP. --------------000006060004000906000009 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear ENUM Group,

In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt I have to raise my hand and ask to slow down.  My apologies first in case this rubs people the wrong way, I do not want to be a party pooper, but I do feel that this is my party.  Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM date to 2008 and we specifically did not publish to the IETF and have done the traditional patent protection around this tech.  Interestingly the latest draft is spot on --  which really begs the question as from what I understood, you can't protect an open standard and therefore we did not do so.  I don't mind sharing but the specific mechanisms described in the draft are in direct conflict with our IP.   We even built the server and have it in operation and are moving into trial with a major operator.    Specifically the use of any type of "sn" style records in ENUM / E164 and other lookup type db's would be in direct violation of our IP. 

--------------000006060004000906000009-- From duane@e164.org Mon Apr 2 22:39:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF1921F86E8 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 22:39:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R9gRN+BsXxtj for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 22:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.aus-biz.com (mail.aus-biz.com [208.82.100.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BFE221F86BE for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 22:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.141] (220-245-82-41.static.tpgi.com.au [220.245.82.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.aus-biz.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40663FF28A; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:39:31 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4F7A8D0F.3080506@e164.org> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:39:27 +1000 From: Duane User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: eric@telesocial.com References: <4F7A82F3.3010500@telesocial.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7A82F3.3010500@telesocial.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090904090607040208050207" Cc: enum@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 05:39:36 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090904090607040208050207 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/03/12 14:56, Eric Stone wrote: > Dear ENUM Group, > > In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt I have to > raise my hand and ask to slow down. My apologies first in case this > rubs people the wrong way, I do not want to be a party pooper, but I > do feel that this is my party. Our intellectual property re: Social > ENUM date to 2008 and we specifically did not publish to the IETF and > have done the traditional patent protection around this tech. > Interestingly the latest draft is spot on -- which really begs the > question as from what I understood, you can't protect an open standard > and therefore we did not do so. I don't mind sharing but the specific > mechanisms described in the draft are in direct conflict with our IP. > We even built the server and have it in operation and are moving > into trial with a major operator. Specifically the use of any type > of "sn" style records in ENUM / E164 and other lookup type db's would > be in direct violation of our IP. e164.org was publishing IM and other social network information via DNS at least as far back as December 2006, I'd have to check the mailing list archive for specific dates. And before it gets pointed out, no we didn't use SN, but that seems an incremental and/or novel change over what we are doing. --------------090904090607040208050207 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/03/12 14:56, Eric Stone wrote:
Dear ENUM Group,

In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt I have to raise my hand and ask to slow down.  My apologies first in case this rubs people the wrong way, I do not want to be a party pooper, but I do feel that this is my party.  Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM date to 2008 and we specifically did not publish to the IETF and have done the traditional patent protection around this tech.  Interestingly the latest draft is spot on --  which really begs the question as from what I understood, you can't protect an open standard and therefore we did not do so.  I don't mind sharing but the specific mechanisms described in the draft are in direct conflict with our IP.   We even built the server and have it in operation and are moving into trial with a major operator.    Specifically the use of any type of "sn" style records in ENUM / E164 and other lookup type db's would be in direct violation of our IP. 

e164.org was publishing IM and other social network information via DNS at least as far back as December 2006, I'd have to check the mailing list archive for specific dates.

And before it gets pointed out, no we didn't use SN, but that seems an incremental and/or novel change over what we are doing.
--------------090904090607040208050207-- From lconroy@insensate.co.uk Tue Apr 3 01:00:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C405721F8493 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 01:00:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BINVkXyN5DBm for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 01:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from insensate.co.uk (ghost.insensate.co.uk [213.152.49.121]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE0721F8528 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 01:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insensate.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0698267EBDE; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:00:50 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at insensate.co.uk Received: from insensate.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (psyche.insensate.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G+XgPM5wDvY9; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by insensate.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB4767EBCE; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0100 (BST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Lawrence Conroy In-Reply-To: <4F7A8D0F.3080506@e164.org> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <16628C55-E3BD-4B3F-B7CE-B5C7E2BDFE7C@insensate.co.uk> References: <4F7A82F3.3010500@telesocial.com> <4F7A8D0F.3080506@e164.org> To: Duane X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: enum@ietf.org, eric@telesocial.com Subject: Re: [Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:00:53 -0000 Hi Duane, Eric, folks, Hi Duane ... You too :). ---- All I'll say on this (apart from the exclusively personal "good luck") = is -- There are many ways of doing this, and in many places in DNS. Do you think Telnic might have thought of the kinds of info that people = could want to publish **before** we went for the .tel CCTLD in 2004? (and yes, there was an attempt in the earlier 2000 round, but that time = the ITU stamped on all things vaguely related to telephony). LJ was the coming star at that point -- how times change. For some more RW examples .. See or dig social.henri.tel for NAPTR (henri.tel is not a web site, it points at a proxy that digs and = presents the content in a web response) or dig instant-messaging.henri.tel for NAPTR, or ... [Re. avoiding the standard process -- I feel your pain. When we finally got around to registering IM, the blatantly obvious way = to do this was overtaken by the cultish pres and im Enumservices, which = sure convinced me that just doing it was easier than arguing. The real = world intruded we have ugly NAPTRs in .tel; sigh] BTW, speaking of different ways of doing this, see the ENUM FOAF stuff = from 2006 for example. SN records can be taken much further, but the privacy concerns are = ridiculous, so it only works (with sane privacy) with proper encryption. That's hard in DNS (unless one uses something like = , and publishes = data for one's friends only, of course). ---- all the best, Lawrence On 3 Apr 2012, at 06:39, Duane wrote: > On 04/03/12 14:56, Eric Stone wrote: >> Dear ENUM Group, >>=20 >> In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt I have to = raise my hand and ask to slow down. My apologies first in case this = rubs people the wrong way, I do not want to be a party pooper, but I do = feel that this is my party. Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM = date to 2008 and we specifically did not publish to the IETF and have = done the traditional patent protection around this tech. Interestingly = the latest draft is spot on -- which really begs the question as from = what I understood, you can't protect an open standard and therefore we = did not do so. I don't mind sharing but the specific mechanisms = described in the draft are in direct conflict with our IP. We even = built the server and have it in operation and are moving into trial with = a major operator. Specifically the use of any type of "sn" style = records in ENUM / E164 and other lookup type db's would be in direct = violation of our IP. >=20 > e164.org was publishing IM and other social network information via = DNS at least as far back as December 2006, I'd have to check the mailing = list archive for specific dates. >=20 > And before it gets pointed out, no we didn't use SN, but that seems an = incremental and/or novel change over what we are doing. From richard@shockey.us Tue Apr 3 06:52:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2049D11E8079 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 06:52:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id stXdValCkQmY for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 06:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy8.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C7F7511E8074 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 06:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23569 invoked by uid 0); 3 Apr 2012 13:52:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box462.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.62) by oproxy8.bluehost.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2012 13:52:00 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shockey.us; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From; bh=2KCdvphONdbd1MFNjB/Lfb2XJCEEvf1v2iYWLYz6M6o=; b=gOmPZNsx0uJzhdcYHnzfH7aaZjRYAvTlZH+FuxYeyWHDVB1U+kZw1WWAiB0i7aObmk5IA74gPx9ckC0Nz2LgcWGyK/MarbbhRIee5rDEIFFzZ1k62fE7YOpuMAaVYZ7E; Received: from pool-108-48-10-220.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([108.48.10.220] helo=RSHOCKEYPC) by box462.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SF49P-0007Sz-Tu; Tue, 03 Apr 2012 07:52:00 -0600 From: "Richard Shockey" To: "'Lawrence Conroy'" , "'Duane'" References: <4F7A82F3.3010500@telesocial.com> <4F7A8D0F.3080506@e164.org> <16628C55-E3BD-4B3F-B7CE-B5C7E2BDFE7C@insensate.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <16628C55-E3BD-4B3F-B7CE-B5C7E2BDFE7C@insensate.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 09:51:57 -0400 Message-ID: <000001cd11a0$f0cb3060$d2619120$@us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac0Rb+aDHFt9X4UZTUiNIc3IQz5s5QAMFbRw Content-Language: en-us X-Identified-User: {3286:box462.bluehost.com:shockeyu:shockey.us} {sentby:smtp auth 108.48.10.220 authed with richard@shockey.us} Cc: enum@ietf.org, eric@telesocial.com Subject: Re: [Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:52:05 -0000 The original ENUM usage btw was in 1993 in RFC 1530. If someone has a intellectual property claim then it has to be posted in the usual manner outlined in RFC 3979. -----Original Message----- From: enum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lawrence Conroy Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 4:01 AM To: Duane Cc: enum@ietf.org; eric@telesocial.com Subject: Re: [Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property Hi Duane, Eric, folks, Hi Duane ... You too :). ---- All I'll say on this (apart from the exclusively personal "good luck") is -- There are many ways of doing this, and in many places in DNS. Do you think Telnic might have thought of the kinds of info that people could want to publish **before** we went for the .tel CCTLD in 2004? (and yes, there was an attempt in the earlier 2000 round, but that time the ITU stamped on all things vaguely related to telephony). LJ was the coming star at that point -- how times change. For some more RW examples .. See or dig social.henri.tel for NAPTR (henri.tel is not a web site, it points at a proxy that digs and presents the content in a web response) or dig instant-messaging.henri.tel for NAPTR, or ... [Re. avoiding the standard process -- I feel your pain. When we finally got around to registering IM, the blatantly obvious way to do this was overtaken by the cultish pres and im Enumservices, which sure convinced me that just doing it was easier than arguing. The real world intruded we have ugly NAPTRs in .tel; sigh] BTW, speaking of different ways of doing this, see the ENUM FOAF stuff from 2006 for example. SN records can be taken much further, but the privacy concerns are ridiculous, so it only works (with sane privacy) with proper encryption. That's hard in DNS (unless one uses something like , and publishes data for one's friends only, of course). ---- all the best, Lawrence On 3 Apr 2012, at 06:39, Duane wrote: > On 04/03/12 14:56, Eric Stone wrote: >> Dear ENUM Group, >> >> In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt I have to raise my hand and ask to slow down. My apologies first in case this rubs people the wrong way, I do not want to be a party pooper, but I do feel that this is my party. Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM date to 2008 and we specifically did not publish to the IETF and have done the traditional patent protection around this tech. Interestingly the latest draft is spot on -- which really begs the question as from what I understood, you can't protect an open standard and therefore we did not do so. I don't mind sharing but the specific mechanisms described in the draft are in direct conflict with our IP. We even built the server and have it in operation and are moving into trial with a major operator. Specifically the use of any type of "sn" style records in ENUM / E164 and other lookup type db's would be in direct violation of our IP. > > e164.org was publishing IM and other social network information via DNS at least as far back as December 2006, I'd have to check the mailing list archive for specific dates. > > And before it gets pointed out, no we didn't use SN, but that seems an incremental and/or novel change over what we are doing. _______________________________________________ enum mailing list enum@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum From dworley@avaya.com Tue Apr 3 08:05:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: enum@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29AFA11E80C4 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:05:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.258 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.258 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.341, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQwfjFoMm5nt for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:05:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FBE11E80B5 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:05:12 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAOQPe0+HCzI1/2dsb2JhbABFt3OBB4IJAQEBAQIBEihECwIBCA0IIRAyJQEBBAESCBqHYgULnmCcDwSQA2MEm3WKHoMD X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,364,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="340520910" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2012 11:05:10 -0400 Received: from dc-us1hcex2.us1.avaya.com (HELO DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.21]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2012 10:49:08 -0400 Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.2.202]) by DC-US1HCEX2.global.avaya.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:05:10 -0400 From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" To: "eric@telesocial.com" , "enum@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:00:16 -0400 Thread-Topic: [Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property Thread-Index: Ac0RVkBthTyxdig6QxeeoJ9lYl5yugAVDqlF Message-ID: References: <4F7A82F3.3010500@telesocial.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7A82F3.3010500@telesocial.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Enum] Social ENUM / Patents and Intellectual Property X-BeenThere: enum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enum Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:05:13 -0000 > From: Eric Stone [eric@telesocial.com] >=20 > In reference to draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00.txt > [...] > Our intellectual property re: Social ENUM date to 2008 and we > specifically did not publish to the IETF and have done the traditional > patent protection around this tech. > [...] > I don't mind sharing but the specific mechanisms described in the > draft are in direct conflict with our IP. Care to tell us the patent or patent application numbers? It would also be seen as a sign of good faith if you filed IPR disclosures (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-specific/) referencing your patents and draft-goix-appsawg-enum-sn-service-00. Dale