Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?

[Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>]

> 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.