FPF Position Statement regarding the RIM Mobile E-Mail Patent Assertion
[ Please distribute this article as widely as possible, wherever appropriate. ] The Free Protocols Foundation article Position Statement regarding the RIM Mobile E-Mail Patent Assertion is provided as an attachment in Plain Text format. The article states the position of the Free Protocols Foundation regarding the RIM mobile e-mail patent. The article is also available in PDF and HTML formats at http://www.freeprotocols.org/position-rim-6219694 This position statement has the endorsement of the Free Software Foundation and the personal endorsement of Richard M. Stallman. --- document in text form follows --- Position Statement regarding the RIM Mobile E-Mail Patent Assertion Free Protocols Foundation Version 2.4 September 12, 2002 Copyright and Permission Copyright (c)2001, 2002 Free Protocols Foundation. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this document provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. 1 Introduction The Free Protocols Foundation (FPF) is a non-profit organization and independent public forum dedicated to the support of patent-free protocols and software. The FPF views software and protocol patents as being detrimental to the industry and the consumer, and part of the FPF mandate is to oppose exceptionally harmful patents when they appear. For more information see the FPF website at http://www.freeprotocols.org. In May 2001 Research in Motion (RIM) made a patent assertion which we regard as an egregious example of patent law abuse, and exceedingly harmful in its potential effects. The following is a statement of the FPF position regarding this patent, the actions we have undertaken to oppose it, and the remedial action we are now demanding of RIM. 2 Research in Motion (RIM) and BlackBerry === Research in Motion (RIM) is a Canadian wireless technology company based in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Among other things RIM manufactures and licenses BlackBerry, a popular wireless handheld e-mail device. BlackBerry is a closed, single-vendor e-mail system, based on a set of proprietary protocols. For details see the BlackBerry website at http://www.blackberry.net. 3 RIM's Patent Assertion In April 2001 RIM was granted U.S. Patent # 6,219,694, entitled System and method for pushing information from a host system to a mobile data communication device having a shared electronic address. The complete text of the patent is available in PDF format on the FPF website at: http://www.freeprotocols.org/usPatents/06219694.pdf. The patent describes a method of directing e-mail to wireless devices, while maintaining mailbox synchronization with a desktop e-mail system. The described method is a basic element of the functioning of various existing mobile e-mail systems, including the BlackBerry system. RIM was quick to take advantage of this patent. Less than a month after the patent was granted, RIM announced a lawsuit against Glenayre Electronics, Inc. for infringement against the patent. To view an article describing this patent assertion, visit http://www.totaltele.com/view.asp?ArticleID=40057pub=ttcategoryid=625. The same article is also available on the FPF website at http://www.freeprotocols.org/rimBBPatentProblem/extNews2.html. In order to understand the eventual disposition of RIM's lawsuit, it is important to know that when it comes to patents Glenayre is no angel either; and in particular, had previously filed its own patent infringment suit against RIM. An article describing the Glenayre patent assertion is available at http://www.garywill.com/waterloo/ctt9908.htm; the same article is also available on the FPF website at http://www.freeprotocols.org/rimBBPatentProblem/extNews1.html. Thus with the initation of RIM's lawsuit against Glenayre, both companies now had patent lawsuits pending against each other. 4 FPF Position on the RIM Patent Assertion The Free Protocols Foundation views the RIM patent assertion as an extreme example of patent-law abuse. This is because: * The patent is based on methods and processes which were previously known and implemented, and there is ample prior art to demonstrate this. RIM's claim that these processes are novel is false. * The patent covers an aspect of mobile e-mail that is so fundamental that if it goes unchallenged, it will have the effect of hobbling the wireless and mobile e-mail industry. The patent is particularly noxious because of the very large scope of its claims. Note that mobile e-mail is not merely another generic product or service - it is an extremely large-scale interconnected system, whose functioning is of profound importance to business and society.
IETF
Linus, I curious as to whether or not you're a member of the IETF or any Internet Society groups. There's a new open protocols movement that Richard Stallman supports. Are you active in furthering the Internet as well as open source?
Re: www.freeprotcols.org
Bill Cunningham should be added to the list of trolls (just below Mr. Fleming). -- Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords !#@?
Re: www.freeprotcols.org
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Bill Cunningham wrote: Bill Cunningham should be added to the list of trolls (just below Mr. Fleming). !#@? Check out RFC3005. I believe your postings often infringe items 2) or 3) of the inappropriate postings list. -- Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Re: www.freeprotcols.org
cut the spam guys - Original Message - From: Bill Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:44 PM Subject: Re: www.freeprotcols.org Bill Cunningham should be added to the list of trolls (just below Mr. Fleming). -- Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords !#@?
Re: www.freeprotcols.org
- Original Message - From: Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bill Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:30 AM Subject: Re: www.freeprotcols.org On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Bill Cunningham wrote: Bill Cunningham should be added to the list of trolls (just below Mr. Fleming). !#@? Check out RFC3005. I believe your postings often infringe items 2) or 3) of the inappropriate postings list. -- Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords I'll take a look.
Bill Cunningham
Bill, It's not the first time I notice that your messages on the IETF discussion list are either not relevant for everybody, or not interesting for everybody, or not related to IETF topics (I've just reviewed all your messages from the first one, dated 17 Oct 2001). I mean, asking *basic* questions while you could find answers with simple web searches, and while a [more than] basic knowledge is (should be?) a pre-requisite to be part of an INTERNET ENGINEERING Task Force discussion, and so exposing your lack of some basic knowledge, is not - IMHO - a respectful attitude vis-à-vis all other contributors. I also mean, starting strange debates (like about OSI), exchanging private mails through this public list, giving your personal feeling and interpretation about some topics, talking about proprietary products, etc. is not only off-topic : it's simply sterile. Once again, while the majority of people here work (more or less) on the technical improvement of IETF-related stuff - or simply exchange and confront ideas - this sounds like a lack of respect for the other contributors. I finally mean, this is neither an FAQ distribution list where people can ask any possible basic question to some IETF guru's who like spending (wasting?) their time repeating the same answers to the same questions, nor a newsgroup where anybody can expose his own private opinions about any possible matter more or less related to the Internet or data communication in general. Of course, this is only my personal opinion (though I know it's similar to others') and therefore I have to apologize. I must admit that I am close to consider you as a simple abusing consumer whose contributions on this list do not bring any added value. Basically, a troll. I would be very pleased to notice in your next contributions that I am completely wrong. E.T. P.S.: I still believe that THE INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE.
Re: Bill Cunningham
- Original Message - From: TOMSON ERIC [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Bill Cunningham' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:37 AM Subject: Bill Cunningham Bill, It's not the first time I notice that your messages on the IETF discussion list are either not relevant for everybody, or not interesting for everybody, or not related to IETF topics (I've just reviewed all your messages from the first one, dated 17 Oct 2001). I mean, asking *basic* questions while you could find answers with simple web searches, and while a [more than] basic knowledge is (should be?) a pre-requisite to be part of an INTERNET ENGINEERING Task Force discussion, and so exposing your lack of some basic knowledge, is not - IMHO - a respectful attitude vis-à-vis all other contributors. I also mean, starting strange debates (like about OSI), exchanging private mails through this public list, giving your personal feeling and interpretation about some topics, talking about proprietary products, etc. is not only off-topic : it's simply sterile. Once again, while the majority of people here work (more or less) on the technical improvement of IETF-related stuff - or simply exchange and confront ideas - this sounds like a lack of respect for the other contributors. I finally mean, this is neither an FAQ distribution list where people can ask any possible basic question to some IETF guru's who like spending (wasting?) their time repeating the same answers to the same questions, nor a newsgroup where anybody can expose his own private opinions about any possible matter more or less related to the Internet or data communication in general. Of course, this is only my personal opinion (though I know it's similar to others') and therefore I have to apologize. I must admit that I am close to consider you as a simple abusing consumer whose contributions on this list do not bring any added value. Basically, a troll. I would be very pleased to notice in your next contributions that I am completely wrong. E.T. P.S.: I still believe that THE INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE. I was unaware of RFC 3005. I'm glad it was pointed out to me. Inappropriate postings include: - Unsolicited bulk e-mail - Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, activities, or technical concerns - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF. Is this the part of RFC 3005 I need to follow?
RE: www.freeprotcols.org
I'm afraid that wont help Bill [replying with a small grouping of symbols]. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Cunningham Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 9:14 AM To: Pekka Savola Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: www.freeprotcols.org Bill Cunningham should be added to the list of trolls (just below Mr. Fleming). -- Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords !#@?
Re: Last Call: Using XML-RPC in BEEP to Proposed Standard
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-harold-beep-xmlrpc-00.txt There are some questions concerning xmlrpc and some, most probably, even beep. 1. How it can work in local networks if IANA is not accessible and profiles can be received neither from the client nor from the server of such network? Or they are placed locally, if so why URL refers to iana.org ? I believe that it works, but how? It is not clearly documented by BEEP specification and is not considered in mentioned draft. C: start number='1' serverName='stateserver.example.com' C: profile uri='http://iana.org/beep/transient/xmlrpc' C: ![CDATA[bootmsg resource='/NumberToName' /]] C: /profile C: /start 2. Few examples are given in the document, it is difficult to get complete understanding of the complex structured parameters representation. 3. Looking on the following example, any person can have idea, whether it is impossible to represent a call briefly and gracefully even using XML? I: MSG 1 1 . 0 364 I: Content-Type: application/xml I: I: ?xml version=1.0? I: methodCall I: methodNameexamples.getStateName/methodName I: params I: param I: valuei441/i4/value I: /param I: /params I: /methodCall I: END L: RPY 1 1 . 201 100 L: Content-type: application/xml L: L: ?xml version=1.0? L: methodResponse L: params L: param L: valuestringSouth Dakota/string/value L: /param L: /params L: /methodRespose L: END -- Best regards, Timurmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IPv6 and child pornographers
The subject line says it all - IPv6 is a great protocol for free speech and other sorted activities. -- Forwarded message -- http://www.circleid.com/articles/2543.asp IPv6: In Search Of Internet Security October 9, 2002 By Joe Baptista My recent articles on IPv6 published this past September 12 and 25 have left many users with the impression that IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) is secure. This is a false assumption. Internet security is more an act of faith in a complex science draped in a religious mystery - in other words non-existent. In my opinion, Internet security has never existed. Any protocol can be violated. IPv6 has the power to make users' communication more secure during transmission. It also can be a security nightmare. So be warned, users of IPv6 - it will bypass your firewall settings but it will give your users enhanced privacy. But the experts are working on it. To understand Internet security it's always a good idea to go back in history. The Internet was a military sponsored communication project developed under DARPA (The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). The idea at the time was to distribute computer resources by decentralizing control and increasing redundancy on United States military and government networks. The goal was to prevent a first strike from taking out computational and communication facilities essential to operations. If the red menace (Soviet Union) bombed a computer facility in Kansas the network would route around the damage and survive. DARPA planners unfortunately were short sighted and did not anticipate the technology would become an international standard for communications. The community of users and networks connected to DARPA were small and trusted so security concerns were a low priority. The end result was the deployment of insecure protocols that have kept many security experts gainfully employed. Even secure protocols are hacked. Today there are millions of compromised computer systems busy trying to hack other computers. And many of those busy hacking computers may no longer be under the control of the original script kiddy hacker who launched them. In fact I suspect many such computers are operating independently of a human operator. IPv6 does fix a lot of the privacy issues and has some added security features that make it a better transport. Keith Moore, a researcher with the computer science department at the University of Tennessee, points out that security is not an IPv6 issue any more than it is an IPv4 issue - probably slightly less. Moore, a former applications area director to the Internet Engineering Steering Group, points out that users of IPv6 will have an added advantage over IPv4. IPv6 transports traffic using the IPsec security protocol. IPv4 connections move traffic around in the clear (plain text). It is up to the user to ensure traffic is encrypted. Sniffer programs at various Internet exchange points can easily intercept most user web and email traffic. Cable users sometimes install sniffer programs to monitor and record IPv4 transmissions. In most cases they don't have the means to decrypt security protocols and they do it mostly for the fun and entertainment value. So don't panic, your credit card is still confidential provided you used it over a secure web session. However don't expect to send your credit card data to Uncle Steve via email. If you have however emailed confidential information to someone chances are your message was transported as plain text and can be subject to interception. The industry would agree that IPv4 is a brain dead protocol and those predicting it's death have good reasons for their position. Government programs like carnivore depended on IPv4 vulnerabilities to be successful. Carnivore is a tool that has revitalized worldwide respect for the FBI in the intelligence community. The program intercepts and analyzes Internet traffic and is classified by the FBI as a diagnostic tool. Carnivore is also a motivating factor in the transition to IPv6 by American, European and Japanese governments. Governments understand their vulnerabilities under IPv4; their intelligence departments have diagnostic tools too. IPsec makes IPv6 less prone to man in the middle interception or attacks. User data under IPv6 is encrypted across the transmission end points. Sure the intelligence establishment has the means to break encrypted protocols but that's an expensive affair. Carnivore has not been effective in catching terrorists who communicate using encrypted channels. But it's been very effective in catching child pornographers that have yet to discover the privacy features available to them under IPv6. It is easy to envision that Carnivore will become a useless
Re: Last Call: Using XML-RPC in BEEP to Proposed Standard
Timur Shemsedinov wrote: 1. How it can work in local networks if IANA is not accessible and profiles can be received neither from the client nor from the server of such network? Or they are placed locally, if so why URL refers to iana.org ? It's not used as a URL; it's used as a URI. You don't resolve it; you just use it as an identifier. This is a common tactic in XML. -- /===\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com| |Centiv|My opinions are my own. | |===| |If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!| \===/
RE: www.freeprotcols.org
Don McMorris wrote: Bill Cunningham should be added to the list of trolls (just below Mr. Fleming). Bill Cunningham is NOT a troll. Mr Fleming is far more worst.
Re: IETF
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 08:00:37AM -0400, Bill Cunningham allegedly wrote: Linus, I curious as to whether or not you're a member of the IETF or any Internet Society groups. There's a new open protocols movement that Richard Stallman supports. Are you active in furthering the Internet as well as open source? (1) You sent this exact message before. (2) There is no reason in the world why the IETF list should have to see it. If you have a question for an individual, send it to the individual. A couple more like this and you'll be banned from the IETF list.
Re: Last Call: Using XML-RPC in BEEP to Proposed Standard
Timur, my responses to your questions follow: 1. The uri attribute associated with a start message's profile element is equivalent to an XML namespace name. It is a URI that uniquely identifies a BEEP profile; it is just an identifier and does not necessarily point to anything on the Web. 2. The methodCall, methodResponse, and associated parameter encodings are all defined by the XML-RPC specification: http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec. The draft explains how to use BEEP to transfer XML-RPC encoded messages between peers not how to actually do the encoding. 3. Grace and beauty are in the eye of the beholder; regarding brevity it is no doubt possible to define a more compact encoding, even using XML, but in this case the XML-RPC authors defined what they defined. ... WkH Timur Shemsedinov [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Ward Harold/Austin/IBM@IBMUS pi.kiev.ua cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Last Call: Using XML-RPC in BEEP to Proposed Standard 10/10/2002 12:08 PM Please respond to Timur Shemsedinov http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-harold-beep-xmlrpc-00.txt There are some questions concerning xmlrpc and some, most probably, even beep. 1. How it can work in local networks if IANA is not accessible and profiles can be received neither from the client nor from the server of such network? Or they are placed locally, if so why URL refers to iana.org ? I believe that it works, but how? It is not clearly documented by BEEP specification and is not considered in mentioned draft. C: start number='1' serverName='stateserver.example.com' C: profile uri='http://iana.org/beep/transient/xmlrpc' C: ![CDATA[bootmsg resource='/NumberToName' /]] C: /profile C: /start 2. Few examples are given in the document, it is difficult to get complete understanding of the complex structured parameters representation. 3. Looking on the following example, any person can have idea, whether it is impossible to represent a call briefly and gracefully even using XML? I: MSG 1 1 . 0 364 I: Content-Type: application/xml I: I: ?xml version=1.0? I: methodCall I: methodNameexamples.getStateName/methodName I: params I: param I: valuei441/i4/value I: /param I: /params I: /methodCall I: END L: RPY 1 1 . 201 100 L: Content-type: application/xml L: L: ?xml version=1.0? L: methodResponse L: params L: param L: valuestringSouth Dakota/string/value L: /param L: /params L: /methodRespose L: END -- Best regards, Timurmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: www.freeprotcols.org
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002 07:57:12 EDT, Bill Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds should become involved in IETF. On the other hand, looking at /usr/src/linux/MAINTAINERS reveals a lot of familiar names. Meanwhile, Richard is quite busy enough pursuing his political agendas with the FSF, and Linus is quite busy enough trying to keep all the people listed in MAINTAINERS pointing in the same direction. I have to admit, this is the message that pushed me over the edge from labelling Mr Cunningham clueless and into the troll category - if you know enough about either of the names dropped to consider dropping them, you'd know why neither of them *should* participate... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg09121/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: www.freeprotcols.org
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 07:57:12AM -0400, Bill Cunningham allegedly wrote: Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds should become involved in IETF. Why are you telling this list? No, don't answer that, just stop.
