DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ADVANCED MEDIA NETWORKS, LLC, § § Plaintiff, §

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ADVANCED MEDIA NETWORKS, LLC, § § Plaintiff, § IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ADVANCED MEDIA NETWORKS, LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-3496-N § AT&T MOBILITY LLC, § § Defendant. § ORDER This Order addresses the issue of claim construction of the patent in suit, U.S. Patent Number 5,960,074 (the “Patent”). The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and all related filings and evidence, including the patent in suit, the specifications, the patent prosecution history to the extent it was submitted by the parties, as well as the parties’ proposed claim constructions. The Court hereby construes the disputed claims according to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 360 (1996). I. BACKGROUND A. The Patent in Suit The Patent, entitled “Mobile Tele-computer Network for Motion Picture, Television and TV Advertising Production,” was issued by the USPTO on September 28, 1999, and is now assigned to Plaintiff Advanced Media Networks, LLC (“AMN”). Although the invention was originally directed at facilitating on-location video production, AMN has ORDER – PAGE 1 asserted it against a variety of technologies, including wirelessly connecting (“tethering” or “hot spot”) computers and other devices to a cell phone, such as those provided by Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”). II. APPLICABLE LAW A. Principles of Claim Construction Claim construction is a question of law for the Court, see Markman, 517 U.S. at 391, although it may involve subsidiary factual questions. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 836-39 (2015). In construing the claims of a patent, the words comprising the claims “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by “a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, courts must determine the meaning of claim terms in light of the resources that a person with such skill would review to understand the patented technology. See id. at 1313 (citing Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). First, “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term . in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess . , the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Id. at 1316. Likewise, if “the specification . reveal[s] an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor . .[,] the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.” Id. (citation omitted). While the claims ORDER – PAGE 2 themselves provide significant guidance as to the meaning of a claim term, the specification is generally dispositive as “it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1314-15 (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition to the specification, courts must examine the patent’s prosecution history – that is, the “complete record of the proceedings before the PTO and includ[ing] the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.” Id. at 1317 (citation omitted). “Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.” Id. (citation omitted). In particular, courts must look to the prosecution history to determine “whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id. (citations omitted). “[W]here the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Finally, in addition to evidence intrinsic to the patent at issue and its prosecution history, courts may look to “extrinsic evidence, which ‘consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980). In general, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id. at 1318. ORDER – PAGE 3 When the intrinsic evidence, that is the patent specification and prosecution history, unambiguously describes the scope of a patented invention, reliance on extrinsic evidence, which is everything outside the specification and prosecution history, is improper. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). While the Court may consult extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and relevant technology, it may not rely upon extrinsic evidence to reach a claim construction that is clearly at odds with a construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence. See Key Pharm. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998). B. Prior Constructions of the Claims of the Patents in Suit The Patent has previously been construed in Advanced Media Networks LLC v. Gogo LLC, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-10474 (C.D. Cal. June 14, 2013) (the “Gogo Order”). That case settled after the Gogo Order was issued and thus was not appealed; in fact, as part of the settlement the Court vacated the Order. This construction provides persuasive authority and helpful guidance to the Court in construction of the claims in this matter, but it is not binding on the Court. Accordingly, the Court provides due deference to this previous claim construction. The Patent has also been raised in several lawsuits, has been reexamined by the PTO several times, and is the subject of inter partes review by the PTAB, though apparently not any of the claims asserted in this action. ORDER – PAGE 4 III. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATENT CLAIMS AND TERMS A. Networks and Layers1 Beginning around the late 1960s, computer scientists began looking at how to connect computers from different vendors together in a systematic manner. It was helpful to conceptualize the problem in layers: starting with physically how do you send a bit of data from one computer to another, on up to how do two computer applications communicate on different computers. To some degree, the idea of layers provided abstraction, that is, the higher layers did not care how the lower layers did their job. Thus the application layer did not care how the physical layer did its job, including famously even by carrier pigeon. See Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”) Request for Comment (“RFC”) 1149 (April 1, 1990) (the date is perhaps significant). The Internet Protocol Suite was developed first under the auspices of the Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”) and later the IETF. It includes four layers: link, internet, transport, and application. It perhaps can be characterized as more concerned with practicality and running code rather than academic rigor in following layers and abstraction. In March 1982, the Department of Defense adopted the Internet Protocol Suite as the standard for all military computer networking. See Richard 1This background does not form any part of the Court’s analysis of the disputed terms, but is offered merely for context. It is of a sufficient level of generality that the Court can take judicial notice of these historical facts. It is drawn from two Wikipedia articles: Internet Protocol Suite, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite (last visited Feb. 21, 2017); and OSI Model, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model (last visited Feb. 21, 2017). ORDER – PAGE 5 DeLauer, Internet Experiment Note (“IEN”) 207 (March 1982), reprinted at https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien207.txt (last visited Feb. 23, 2017). In separate and somewhat later efforts, the International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) and the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Committee (“CCIT”), a European standards organization, both began developing a more formal standard for layers. In 1983, the two efforts merged, resulting in 1984 in the Open System Interconnection Reference Model, ISO 7498, or OSI. OSI defines seven layers with relatively strict separation between the layers. The Internet Protocol Suite and the OSI model have somewhat different philosophies, and there is no strict correlation or mapping of the four Internet Protocol Suite layers to the seven OSI model layers, though approximations can be made. With this historical context in mind, the Court will turn to the claim language at issue. B. Claim Construction 1. “a redundant digital microwave communications system” AMN: a digital microwave communication system that allows for the transmission of information in the event of a non-functional communication path or device AT&T: a digital microwave communication system arranged in a microwave ring so that if one link is not functional, data may be routed in the opposite direction to arrive at its designated location ORDER – PAGE 6 Analysis: The principal issue is whether the topology of the redundant microwave communication system is limited to a ring, as shown in the “Exemplary Network System Embodiments.” See Patent 3:64-66 (“The microwave ring employs system redundancy so that if one link is not functional, data may be routed in the opposite direction to arrive at its designated location.”). AT&T relies on language in this section referring to “the present invention,” which it argues indicates that this limitation is applicable to the patent as a whole, not merely the preferred embodiment. See AT&T Amd. Opening Br. at 21-22 [105] (citing, among others, TiVo Inc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The People Who Invented the Internet Source: Wikipedia's History of the Internet
    The People Who Invented the Internet Source: Wikipedia's History of the Internet PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 02:49:54 UTC Contents Articles History of the Internet 1 Barry Appelman 26 Paul Baran 28 Vint Cerf 33 Danny Cohen (engineer) 41 David D. Clark 44 Steve Crocker 45 Donald Davies 47 Douglas Engelbart 49 Charles M. Herzfeld 56 Internet Engineering Task Force 58 Bob Kahn 61 Peter T. Kirstein 65 Leonard Kleinrock 66 John Klensin 70 J. C. R. Licklider 71 Jon Postel 77 Louis Pouzin 80 Lawrence Roberts (scientist) 81 John Romkey 84 Ivan Sutherland 85 Robert Taylor (computer scientist) 89 Ray Tomlinson 92 Oleg Vishnepolsky 94 Phil Zimmermann 96 References Article Sources and Contributors 99 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 102 Article Licenses License 103 History of the Internet 1 History of the Internet The history of the Internet began with the development of electronic computers in the 1950s. This began with point-to-point communication between mainframe computers and terminals, expanded to point-to-point connections between computers and then early research into packet switching. Packet switched networks such as ARPANET, Mark I at NPL in the UK, CYCLADES, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s using a variety of protocols. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks. In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper: an Analysis of the "New IP" Proposal to the ITU-T
    Discussion Paper: An analysis of the "New IP" proposal to the ITU-T Hascall Sharp (author), Olaf Kolkman (Internet Society editor) This is a discussion paper. This paper represents the Internet Society’s emerging opinion, but does not represent a final Internet Society position. Instead, we intend it as a means to gather information and insight from our community on the topic. Comments are welcome. Contact the authors directly on [email protected] or post to the [email protected] mailing list, which is public and archived. Executive Summary The Internet continues to evolve at a rapid pace. New services, applications, and protocols are being developed and deployed in many areas, including recently: a new transport protocol (QUIC), enhancements in how the Domain Name System (DNS) is accessed, and mechanisms to support deterministic applications over Ethernet and IP networks. These changes are only possible because the community involved includes everyone from content providers, to Internet Service Providers, to browser developers, to equipment manufacturers, to researchers, to users, and more. Given this backdrop it is concerning that a proposal has been made to ITU-T1 to "start a further long- term research now and in the next “study period" to develop a "top-down design for the future network." A tutorial/presentation has also been given at several ITU-T meetings supporting this proposal and providing more detail. The proposal refers to this future network as the "New IP protocol system" and claims the following challenges faced by the current network (the Internet) as the primary reasons for a new architecture: • The need to support heterogeneous networks (called ManyNets2) and the need to support "more types of devices into the future network." "[T]he current network system risks becoming 'islands" • The need to support Deterministic Forwarding globally.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Working Group G. Malkin, Editor Request for Comments: 1983 Xylogics FYI: 18 August 1996 Obsoletes: 1392 Category: Informational
    Network Working Group G. Malkin, Editor Request for Comments: 1983 Xylogics FYI: 18 August 1996 Obsoletes: 1392 Category: Informational Internet Users' Glossary Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract There are many networking glossaries in existence. This glossary concentrates on terms which are specific to the Internet. Naturally, there are entries for some basic terms and acronyms because other entries refer to them. Acknowledgements This document is the work of the User Glossary Working Group of the User Services Area of the Internet Engineering Task Force. I would especially like to thank Ryan Moats/InterNIC for his careful review and many contributions to this document. Table of Contents non-letter . 2 I . 26 R . 46 A . 2 J . 33 S . 49 B . 7 K . 33 T . 52 C . 10 L . 33 U . 55 D . 14 M . 35 V . 57 E . 18 N . 39 W . 57 F . 20 O . 42 X . 59 G . 22 P . 43 Y . 60 H . 23 Q . 46 Z . 60 References . 61 Security Considerations . 62 Editor's Address . 62 Malkin Informational [Page 1] RFC 1983 Glossary August 1996 Glossary 10Base2 A physical layer communications specification for 10Mbps, baseband data transmission over a coaxial cable (Thinnet) with a maximum cable segment length of 200 meters. 10Base5 A physical layer communications specification for 10Mbps, baseband data transmission over a coaxial cable (Thicknet) with a maximum cable segment length of 500 meters. 10BaseF A physical layer communications specification for 10Mbps, baseband data transmission over a fiber-optic cable.
    [Show full text]
  • 762 USC-ISI Internet Experiment Note: 127 January 1980
    Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 762 USC-ISI Internet Experiment Note: 127 January 1980 Obsoletes RFCs: 758, 755, 750,739, 604, 503, 433, 349 Obsoletes IENs: 117, 93 ASSIGNED NUMBERS This Network Working Group Request for Comments documents the currently assigned values from several series of numbers used in network protocol implementations. This RFC will be updated periodically, and in any case current information can be obtained from Jon Postel. The assignment of numbers is also handled by Jon. If you are developing a protocol or application that will require the use of a link, socket, etc. please contact Jon to receive a number assignment. Jon Postel USC - Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, California 90291 phone: (213) 822-1511 ARPANET mail: POSTEL@ISIE Most of the protocols mentioned here are documented in the RFC series of notes. The more prominent and more generally used are documented in the Protocol Handbook [1] prepared by the Network Information Center (NIC). In the lists that follow a bracketed number, e.g. [1], off to the right of the page indicates a reference for the listed protocol. Postel [Page 1] RFC 762 January 1980 IEN 127 Assigned Numbers Network Numbers ASSIGNED NETWORK NUMBERS This list of network numbers is used in the internetwork, the field is 8 bits in size. Assigned Network Numbers Decimal Octal Name Network References ------- ----- ---- ------- ---------- 0 0 Reserved 1 1 BBN-PR BBN Packet Radio Network 2 2 SF-PR-1 SF Bay Area Packet Radio Network (1) 3 3 BBN-RCC BBN RCC Network 4 4 SATNET Atlantic Satellite Network 5 5 SILL-PR Ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Working Group G. Malkin Request for Comments: 1392 Xylogics, Inc
    Network Working Group G. Malkin Request for Comments: 1392 Xylogics, Inc. FYI: 18 T. LaQuey Parker UTexas Editors January 1993 Internet Users' Glossary Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract There are many networking glossaries in existence. This glossary concentrates on terms which are specific to the Internet. Naturally, there are entries for some basic terms and acronyms because other entries refer to them. Acknowledgements This document is the work of the User Glossary Working Group of the User Services Area of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Special thanks go to Jon Postel for his definitive definition of "datagram". Table of Contents non-letter . 2 I . 23 R . 40 A . 2 J . 29 S . 43 B . 6 K . 29 T . 45 C . 9 L . 29 U . 48 D . 12 M . 30 V . 49 E . 16 N . 33 W . 49 F . 18 O . 36 X . 50 G . 20 P . 37 Y . 51 H . 21 Q . 40 Z . 51 References . 52 Security Considerations . 53 Authors' Addresses . 53 User Glossary Working Group [Page 1] RFC 1392 Internet Glossary January 1993 Glossary 10BaseT A variant of Ethernet which allows stations to be attached via twisted pair cable. See also: Ethernet, twisted pair. 802.x The set of IEEE standards for the definition of LAN protocols. See also: IEEE. 822 See: RFC 822 :-) This odd symbol is one of the ways a person can portray "mood" in the very flat medium of computers--by using "smiley faces".
    [Show full text]
  • Network Working Group G. Malkin, Editor Request for Comments: 1983 Xylogics FYI: 18 August 1996 Obsoletes: 1392 Category: Informational
    Network Working Group G. Malkin, Editor Request for Comments: 1983 Xylogics FYI: 18 August 1996 Obsoletes: 1392 Category: Informational Internet Users' Glossary Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract There are many networking glossaries in existence. This glossary concentrates on terms which are specific to the Internet. Naturally, there are entries for some basic terms and acronyms because other entries refer to them. Acknowledgements This document is the work of the User Glossary Working Group of the User Services Area of the Internet Engineering Task Force. I would especially like to thank Ryan Moats/InterNIC for his careful review and many contributions to this document. Table of Contents non-letter . 2 I . 26 R . 46 A . 2 J . 33 S . 49 B . 7 K . 33 T . 52 C . 10 L . 33 U . 55 D . 14 M . 35 V . 57 E . 18 N . 39 W . 57 F . 20 O . 42 X . 59 G . 22 P . 43 Y . 60 H . 23 Q . 46 Z . 60 References . 61 Security Considerations . 62 Editor's Address . 62 Malkin Informational [Page 1] RFC 1983 Glossary August 1996 Glossary 10Base2 A physical layer communications specification for 10Mbps, baseband data transmission over a coaxial cable (Thinnet) with a maximum cable segment length of 200 meters. 10Base5 A physical layer communications specification for 10Mbps, baseband data transmission over a coaxial cable (Thicknet) with a maximum cable segment length of 500 meters. 10BaseF A physical layer communications specification for 10Mbps, baseband data transmission over a fiber-optic cable.
    [Show full text]
  • Protocol Layering and Internet Policy
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 5-2013 Protocol Layering and Internet Policy Christopher S. Yoo University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Systems and Communications Commons Repository Citation Yoo, Christopher S., "Protocol Layering and Internet Policy" (2013). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 454. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/454 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Yoo p2.docx (DO NOT DELETE) 5/8/2013 11:07 AM ARTICLE PROTOCOL LAYERING AND INTERNET POLICY CHRISTOPHER S. YOO† An architectural principle known as protocol layering is widely recognized as one of the foundations of the Internet’s success. In addition, some scholars and industry participants have urged using the layers model as a central organizing principle for regulatory policy. Despite its importance as a concept, a comprehensive analysis of protocol layering and its implications for Internet policy has yet to appear in the literature. This Article attempts to correct this omission. It begins with a detailed description of the way the five-layer model developed, introducing protocol layering’s central features, such as the division of functions across layers, infor- mation hiding, peer communication, and encapsulation. It then discusses the model’s implications for whether particular functions are performed at the edge or in the core of the network, contrasts the model with the way that layering has been depicted in the legal commentary, and analyzes attempts to use layering as a basis for competition policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Packet Speech on the Arpanet: a History of Early LPC Speech and Its Accidental Impact on the Internet Protocol Robert M
    Research Triangle Park 11 June 2007 Packet speech on the Arpanet: A history of early LPC speech and its accidental impact on the Internet Protocol Robert M. Gray Information Systems Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering Stanford, CA 94305 The author’s work in speech was partially supported by the National Science Foundation. Thanks to J. D. Markel, A.H. “Steen” Gray, Jr., John Burg, Charlie Davis, Mike McCammon, Danny Cohen, Steve Casner, Richard Wiggins, Vishu Viswanathan, Jim Murphy, Cliff Weinstein, Joseph P. Campbell, Randy Cole, Rich Dean, Vint Cerf, and Bob Kahn. http://ee.stanford.edu/ gray/lpcip.html http://ee.stanford.edu/ gray/dl.html LPC & IP 1 Origins of this talk Special Workshop in Maui (SWIM), 12 January 2004 LPC & IP 2 Part I: Linear Prediction & Speech Observe data sequence {X0,X1,...,Xm−1}. Guess Xm Optimal 1-step prediction ¿ What is the optimal predictor of the form X˜m = p(X0,...,Xm−1)? Optimal 1-step linear prediction ¿ What is the optimal linear ˜ Pm predictor of the form Xm = − l=1 alXm−l ? Modeling/density estimation ¿ What is the probability density function (pdf) that “best” models Xm? Spectrum Estimation ¿ What is the “best” estimate of the power spectral density or covariance of the underyling random process? LPC & IP 3 The Application Speech Coding ¿ How apply linear prediction to produce low bit rate speech of sufficient quality for speech understanding and speaker recognition? E.g., reproducing waveform (waveform coding) or use model to synthesize (voice coding). Wide literature exists on all of these topics in a speech context and they are intimately related.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet History and Growth
    Internet History and Growth William F. Slater, III Chicago Chapter of the Internet Society September 2002 Agenda • Internet History • Internet Evolution • Internet Pioneers • Internet Growth – Sept. 1969 – Sept. 2002 • Conclusion What Was the “Victorian Internet”? What Was the “Victorian Internet” • The Telegraph • Invented in the 1840s. • Signals sent over wires that were established over vast distances • Used extensively by the U.S. Government during the American Civil War, 1861 - 1865 • Morse Code was dots and dashes, or short signals and long signals • The electronic signal standard of +/- 15 v. is still used in network interface cards today. Famous Quote From Sir Isaac Newton • “If I have been able to see farther than others, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants.” What Is the Internet? • A network of networks, joining many government, university and private computers together and providing an infrastructure for the use of E-mail, bulletin boards, file archives, hypertext documents, databases and other computational resources • The vast collection of computer networks which form and act as a single huge network for transport of data and messages across distances which can be anywhere from the same office to anywhere in the world. Written by William F. Slater, III 1996 President of the Chicago Chapter of the Internet Society Copyright 2002, William F. Slater, III, Chicago, IL, USA What is the Internet? • The largest network of networks in the world. • Uses TCP/IP protocols and packet switching . • Runs on any communications
    [Show full text]
  • The Past Meets the Present at IETF 73 Evolution of the IP Model
    Volume 4, Issue 3 IETF Journal February 2009 A report from IETF 73, November 2008, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Published by the Internet Society in Inside this issue cooperation with the Internet Engineering Task Force* The Past Meets the Present at IETF 73.... 1 The Past Meets the Present at IETF 73 Evolution of the From the Editor’s Desk, by Mirjam Kühne IP Model ..................... 1 Since it was first published some 30 years ago, the IP model has emerged as one of the most influ- Message from the IETF Chair ........... 2 ential technological developments of our time. As it turns out, its evolution is also one of the more interesting stories in the history of the Internet. At IETF 73, Internet Architecture Board member New BoF Meetings .... 2 Dave Thaler gave a well-received presentation called Evolution of the IP Model, which was based on Words from an Internet-Draft published last November. An article the IAB Chair ............. 3 based on the presentation, which Dave adapted spe- IETF 73 cifically for the IETF Journal, appears on this page. Facts and Figures ...... 3 Jon Postel was remembered throughout the week, Plenary Report .......... 4 most notably at a private dinner in Minneapolis com- thberg ö memorating the 10-year passing of Jon and honouring ISOC Fellows this year’s winner of the Internet Society’s Jonathan Attend IETF 73 .......12 B. Postel Service Award (see page 14). Jon’s memory Jonathan B. Postel also was deeply felt during the Plenary, particularly Photo by Peter L View of Minneapolis, site of IETF 73 Service Award Granted when Dave, as part of his presentation, invoked Jon’s to EsLaRed ............14 famous credo: Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you receive.
    [Show full text]
  • The Creation and Administration of Unique Identifiers, 1967-2017 2
    [AUTHOR] 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ......................................................................................................... 4 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 8 1.3 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 11 1.4 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................. 14 2 INSTANTIATING THE UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS (1969-2017) .......................... 17 2.1 The Arpanet .............................................................................................................................. 17 2.1.1 Host Addresses ................................................................................................................................ 22 2.1.2 Multiplexing Numbers .................................................................................................................... 23 2.1.3 Host Names ..................................................................................................................................... 25 2.1.4
    [Show full text]
  • Protocol Layering and Internet Policy
    ARTICLE PROTOCOL LAYERING AND INTERNET POLICY CHRISTOPHER S. YOO† An architectural principle known as protocol layering is widely recognized as one of the foundations of the Internet’s success. In addition, some scholars and industry participants have urged using the layers model as a central organizing principle for regulatory policy. Despite its importance as a concept, a comprehensive analysis of protocol layering and its implications for Internet policy has yet to appear in the literature. This Article attempts to correct this omission. It begins with a detailed description of the way the five-layer model developed, introducing protocol layering’s central features, such as the division of functions across layers, infor- mation hiding, peer communication, and encapsulation. It then discusses the model’s implications for whether particular functions are performed at the edge or in the core of the network, contrasts the model with the way that layering has been depicted in the legal commentary, and analyzes attempts to use layering as a basis for competition policy. Next the Article identifies certain emerging features of the Internet that are placing pressure on the layered model, including WiFi routers, network-based security, modern routing protocols, and wireless broadband. These developments illustrate how every architecture inevitably limits functionality as well as the architecture’s ability to evolve over time in response to changes in the † John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Sci- ence and Founding Director of the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition (CTIC), University of Pennsylvania. I would like to thank the Milton and Miriam Handler Foundation, the New York Bar Foundation, and CTIC for their financial support for this project.
    [Show full text]