headers
Bob Braden | 2 Jan 2008 18:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: Modular/Pluggable TCP Congestion Control for FreeBSD


  *> 
  *> Hi all,
  *> 
  *> We've been involved in a research project to implement and test an
  *> emerging TCP congestion control algorithm under FreeBSD. As a part of
  *> this, we've put together a patch for FreeBSD 7.0-BETA4 that modularises
  *> the congestion control code in the TCP stack. It allows for new
  *> congestion control algorithms to be developed as loadable kernel modules.
  *> 

Research project?  Uhhh, this sounds like an implementation of Hari
Balakrishnan's Congestion Manager (ACM SIGCOMM 1999), but perhaps
I am missing something.

Long, long ago I heard Herb Simon quip that, while most scientists
stand on each other's shoulders, Computer Scientists stand on each
other's toes.

Bob Braden
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
David P. Reed | 3 Jan 2008 04:15
Picon

patents on routing algorithms

A student just mentioned to me that AODV and OLSR routing algorithms are 
patented.  I have to say I was surprised.   Anyone know by whom, and 
what the licensing requirements are?

Are there also patents on any end-to-end protocols described by RFCs?
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Joe Touch | 3 Jan 2008 06:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: patents on routing algorithms


David P. Reed wrote:
> A student just mentioned to me that AODV and OLSR routing algorithms are
> patented.  I have to say I was surprised.   Anyone know by whom, and
> what the licensing requirements are?
> 
> Are there also patents on any end-to-end protocols described by RFCs?

See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/

OSPF, in particular, has IBM IPR claims. Many are of the form "don't
enforce against us, and you can use this one for free"; something of
that general flexibility is typically the most restrictive accepted for
standards-track protocols.

Joe
Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Jon Crowcroft | 3 Jan 2008 07:53
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: patents on routing algorithms

a letter in this month's CACM reminds us that the Church-Turing Theorem
states that algorithms and mathematics are the same - math is unpatentable
so ...

time to trash algorithm patents esp. where they are used in clear violation even
of the original (at least US) intent of patent law....edison will be turning in
his grave...

the ietf has (had) the right model..

In missive <477C7660.8020406 <at> isi.edu>, Joe Touch typed:

 >>This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
 >>--------------enig1A3BBBC866E744BC19654C61
 >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>David P. Reed wrote:
 >>> A student just mentioned to me that AODV and OLSR routing algorithms ar=
 >>e
 >>> patented.  I have to say I was surprised.   Anyone know by whom, and
 >>> what the licensing requirements are?
 >>>=20
 >>> Are there also patents on any end-to-end protocols described by RFCs?
 >>
 >>See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
 >>
 >>OSPF, in particular, has IBM IPR claims. Many are of the form "don't
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Detlef Bosau | 3 Jan 2008 16:39
Picon

Re: Modular/Pluggable TCP Congestion Control for FreeBSD

Bob Braden wrote:
> Long, long ago I heard Herb Simon quip that, while most scientists
> stand on each other's shoulders, Computer Scientists stand on each
> other's toes.
>   

Hm. IIRC, Wes Eddy accredited this to Hamming ;-)
> Bob Braden
>
>   

--

-- 
Detlef Bosau                          Mail:  detlef.bosau <at> web.de
Galileistrasse 30                     Web:   http://www.detlef-bosau.de
70565 Stuttgart                       Skype: detlef.bosau
Mobile: +49 172 681 9937
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Bruce M Simpson | 3 Jan 2008 16:50
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: patents on routing algorithms

Joe Touch wrote:
> David P. Reed wrote:
>   
>> A student just mentioned to me that AODV and OLSR routing algorithms are
>> patented.  I have to say I was surprised.   Anyone know by whom, and
>> what the licensing requirements are?
>>     
> See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/
>   

I see no matches for RFC 3626 (OLSR), and am unaware of any patent 
claims in this area.

David, can your student provide any more information about these IPR 
claims? There's a lot of junk (patents|laws|culture|food) out there 
these days.

A brief search reveals this, which sounds like a junk patent:

http://www.freshpatents.com/Network-architecture-dt20071213ptan20070286097.php

There are a number of efforts related to OLSR which make the "don't hit 
us, and we won't hit you" approach explicit in their wording, but they 
are not OLSR itself, merely extensions.

Perhaps someone should start a social networking site, whereby 
organisations which file embarassingly general patents, such as this 
one, are named and shamed, and generally poked fun at by the rest of the 
human race.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joe Touch | 3 Jan 2008 20:22
Picon
Favicon

Re: Modular/Pluggable TCP Congestion Control for FreeBSD


Detlef Bosau wrote:
> Bob Braden wrote:
>> Long, long ago I heard Herb Simon quip that, while most scientists
>> stand on each other's shoulders, Computer Scientists stand on each
>> other's toes.
>>   
> 
> Hm. IIRC, Wes Eddy accredited this to Hamming ;-)

FWIW:

"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders
of giants"

is attributed to Isaac Newton from his use in a letter to Robert Hooke,
February 5, 1675, but ts origin goes back another 400 years or so to a
philosopher named Bernard of Chartres around 1130:

"We are like dwarfs standing [or sitting] upon the shoulders of giants,
and so able to see more and see farther than the ancients."
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0162b.shtml

Mathematicians were brought into the comparison by Gauss:
"Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."

Richard Hamming said the following, at least by most sources:
"Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders while computer
scientists stand on each other's toes."
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joe Touch | 3 Jan 2008 22:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: patents on routing algorithms


Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> a letter in this month's CACM reminds us that the Church-Turing Theorem
> states that algorithms and mathematics are the same - math is unpatentable
> so ...

FWIW, math isn't patentable itself, but is potentially patentable when
applied to a real problem (e.g., general path calculation wouldn't be,
but IP packet routing would even if it's basically just an application
of general path calculation).

See, e.g.,:
http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html

Joe
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
David P. Reed | 3 Jan 2008 23:26
Picon

Re: patents on routing algorithms

One should be careful that just because we speak English on this list, 
we don't all live in England.  US patent law is different from that in 
other jurisdictions.

We aren't talking about "software patents" when we refer to processes 
that involve sending messages between devices - i.e. network protocols - 
by the way.  The BGP spec is not code for a computer, nor is AODV.  In 
fact, BGP

Algorithm patents are not strictly identical to software patents.  An 
algorithm is a process.   A software program is a recipe that causes a 
device to perform a process, but it also typically has "free variables" 
so it is a recipe that is not terribly specific.   At some degree of 
non-specificity it almost certainly doesn't specify anything narrow 
enough to be patentable subject matter.

Of course, all these nouns that I am forced to use to describe 
abstractions create the illusion that descriptions are equivalent to the 
things described.

/*"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"  (see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images)

or, if you prefer the American Presidentialism: "it all depends on what 
is is" (Clinton).
*/

Joe Touch wrote:
> Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Joe Touch | 4 Jan 2008 00:05
Picon
Favicon

Re: Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?


Detlef Bosau wrote:
> Lynne Jolitz wrote:
...
>> Many people on the academic side still use forms of BSD, and perhaps
>> prefer the old way of doing things. I use BSD myself. However, Linux
>> is clearly the market leader and cooperating with how they handle
>> their development model is a key consideration for promulgating new
>> work in networking and operating systems.   
> 
> That´s simply not the point.
> 
> I think, Lloyd Wood made the point precisely:
> 
> "Academics are rewarded by writing papers. They are not rewarded by
> staying current with the current codebase of the linux kernel/ns."

Nor are they rewarded for paying the penalty of the goofiness of the
Linux community in deploying experimental protocols as default. This has
come up at a number of IETF meetings, in particular, regarding CUBIC
which is currently the default in Linux despite being an Internet Draft
intended as experimental in the IETF.

Academics like stability, and they like things that follow standards.

Joe
Permalink | Reply | 57 comments |

Gmane