Seen this ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination#Process
Seems to be fairly straight-forward, though not sure how big the fee is.
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Barrett
Sent: August 11, 2009 2:46 PM
To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks
Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Some Microsoft chump patented my innovation
Hm, I tried WikiPatents, but it doesn't seem to have an entry for the
patent. And the USPTO's ironically-named "Peer-to-Patent" pilot program has
concluded and isn't taking new applications.
-david
EdPimentl wrote:
> Let the PTO know of prior arts and keep discussing in the list as
> prior arts.
>
> -E
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:30 PM, David Barrett <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Or, to be more accurate, some Microsoft chump patented something that
> was pretty obvious to me at the time, and probably obvious to a bunch
of
> others. More interestingly, he did it years after I open-sourced my
> iGlance application *and* presented the exact algorithm at Codecon,
the
> premiere P2P conference of the time.
>
> It's patent #20080205288, named "Concurrent connection testing for
> computation of NAT timeout period". It's abstract is:
>
> > Concurrent testing of NAT connections using different timeout
> values to compute a keep-alive value for the NAT device. Computation
> of the approximate timeout value is accomplished concurrently over
> multiple test connections within about a time equivalent to the
> actual NAT timeout value. The architecture validates the computation
> of the approximate timeout value by distinguishing NAT connection
> failure from external failure using a control connection. Moreover,
> computation of the keep-alive value is performed only once for a
> given NAT device rather than being an on-going process for that NAT
> device. When one of the test connections fails, it is determined
> that the NAT timeout value is less than the test timeout value
> associated with the failed test connection. Accordingly, a smaller
> test timeout value is then selected as the keep-alive value for
> keep-alive processing of the NAT device.
>
>
> This sounds remarkably similar to the discussions we've had on this
list
> over the years (including very recently), and that is available in my
> iGlance application here:
>
> http://www.iglance.com/
>
> Also, note that iGlance has been open source since 2005 -- you can
> download a 2006 snapshot of the code tree here:
>
> http://www.iglance.com/code.html
>
> You can also see iGlance in the 2006 CodeCon schedule here:
>
> http://codecon.org/2006/program.html#iglance
>
>
> Can anybody suggest a good place to record prior art (other than this
> list) such that if anybody wants to contest this patent in the future
> they'll be able to easily find it?
>
> -david
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
