nanog mailing list archives
Re: US patent 5473599
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:10:23 +0200
On 22/04/2014 12:31, Henning Brauer wrote:
it does NOT cover carp, not at all.
that is a political statement rather than a legal opinion. If you read the patent, it's pretty obvious that when you have a group of carp-enabled devices providing a stable gateway IP address, and these devices are routing traffic received via the carp published address, this configuration provides the same functionality that's described in the patent claims. This hasn't been tested in court and neither of us is a lawyer and the patent seems to have expired, so it's academic at this stage. Nick
Current thread:
- US patent 5473599 Nick Hilliard (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Nick Hilliard (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Paul WALL (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Ryan Shea (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Paul WALL (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Steve Clark (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Warren Bailey (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Nick Hilliard (Apr 22)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 23)
- Re: US patent 5473599 TGLASSEY (Apr 23)
- Re: US patent 5473599 Henning Brauer (Apr 22)
