Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:47:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Henry Linneweh <hrlinneweh@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?

--- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk> wrote:

...

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote:

...

--- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk> wrote:

...

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Petri Helenius wrote:

...

We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending on the date they filed, prior art exists well documented. (blueprints obviously predate running code)

everyone has gone patent crazy, every time a new concept is developed some company applies for patent. is this the future or rfcs then?

Steve

...

Well if it will harm the community, would it be possible to auto copyright rfc's, so that the authors of a concept can prevent someone from sipping their effort off?

RFCs -- like aything else -- _are_ copyrighted, under current law. However, almost all, if not all, of them contain express permission for anyone to copy/reproduce them. Copyright of a process description, furthermore, does *NOT* preclude someone from -using- the the process that was so described. Aside from those 'inconsiderate' facts getting in the way, you don't have a bad idea. :)

...

...

Ignorance at the top doesn't mean we can't be like always leading the way......

-Henry

...

one issue with that might be that the patents are taken out on variations of the core idea, imho the variations are not new ideas but legally they seem to get away with it

Steve

ok so then in the copyright let us see if can cover all variations of the original concept as belonging to the original author or author's as a test case for adaption and modificaiton to copyright law. I strongly believe in the protection of original idea's in reference to rfc's

Sorry, copyright doesn't work that way. The _expression_ the concept is protected. *NOT* the underlying concept itself. To protect a 'process', or 'mechanism', you are into the realm of _patent_ law.