Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [P1619-1] [STDS-P1619] IEEE RevCom approves P1619 and P1619.1

Hi Ian,

A couple things:


On Dec 14, 2007 2:00 AM, dtufs wrote:
Thank you. Note that anyone who wishes to implement the standard may have the same questions about the patent status and they won't search this workgroup mailing lists for answers. They should be able to find the information in the standard specs. In the Patent chapter (along with the disclaimer "there may be some patents") there should be an additional subsection listing all relevant persons (above all, the desingers) who expressly waived any patent claims. Then you won't be getting these questions and it will increase the usability of the standard. Thank you again.

----- Original Message ----
From: Shai Halevi
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:29:12 PM
Subject: Re: [STDS-P1619] IEEE RevCom approves P1619 and P1619.1

This matter was discussed and resolved long ago, as you can find in
the email archive, see in particular the message from Sep-28, 2006

The bottom line: Phil did not claim any IP regarding XEX, nor does he
know of anyone else who might have such a claim.

Also please note that discussions of XEX/XTS should be carried out at
the 1619 mailing list, not the 1619.1 mailing list.

-- Shai

dtufs wrote:
> To ensure implementability of the standard, there have to be
> at least from the designers of the mode. Has anyone asked Phillip
> Rogaway, the designer of the XEX mode, if he had patented his mode or
> he intends to do so?
> Also, at I found the following:
> "AI1 Shai: do a due diligence investigation on patents on XEX by
> to people that might have extra-USPTO info"
> What was the outcome of that investigation?
> Thank you.

Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Matt Ball