Another patent battle for Android

Posted Nov 14, 2013 12:00 UTC (Thu) by HIGHGuY (subscriber, #62277)
Parent article: Another patent battle for Android

I would say the '298 patent is particularly interesting, essentially describing NAT.

In Android, I would expect this is implemented by the kernel using netfilter/iptables. This would mean that, according to RockStar, this piece of kernel code is patent-encumbered.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of this claim, since the consequences could be huge...

In the best case it could drive the implementation of nftables, because as far as I understand it, it doesn't implement NAT per se but implements packet processing (which can be used to implement NAT through configuration).

Another patent battle for Android

Posted Nov 15, 2013 2:53 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

when did masquerading get added to the mainline kernel? I'm pretty sure that I was using it back in '94 or so (I think I actually still have a firewall from that timeframe on a shelf in the garage)

For that matter, it could be argued that the Firewall Toolkit proxies from the 80's did the same thing in userspace (although there the internal system connected to the firewall, not to the remote host)

Another patent battle for Android

Posted Nov 18, 2013 9:23 UTC (Mon) by edeloget (subscriber, #88392) [Link] (2 responses)

I just read '298 and it is NAT. It even use the words address translation in the text, describe the use with TCP, UDP and ICMP. However, it makes no reference to RFC 1631 despite the fact that it was released in 2004 (2 years before the patent was filled). Read claim 1:

A method of interfacing private and public data communications networks, through a filter node in communication with both networks, the filter node having an address known in the public network, comprising the steps of:
routing from nodes in the private network, to the filter node, outgoing data packets having destination information, which includes a destination address and a destination port, corresponding to nodes in the public network and having source information, which includes a source address and a source port, of the respective private network nodes;

I'd say that this patent is a product of stupid end-of-the-ninety's management.

"Hey, boss, I found that, could be handy."
"Is it patented?"
"No, I don't think so. It's an internet draft st..."
"That new thing? I believe we own it. Write the patent".

Every single router vendor (including ISPs that propose their own routers) should be able to file a an amicus brief. Not to mention that the prior art is visible as hell here. NAT has been invented even before it has been RFC'ed.

Another patent battle for Android

Posted Nov 20, 2013 17:33 UTC (Wed) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link] (1 responses)

RFC 1631 was published in 1994, not 2004. (2 years before the patent filing, as you said).

Another patent battle for Android

Posted Nov 22, 2013 9:33 UTC (Fri) by edeloget (subscriber, #88392) [Link]

That looks like a partial brain failure. Sorry.