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