[p2p-hackers] Altnet goes after p2p networks with obvious patent

Ian Clarke ian at locut.us
Wed Jan 12 20:22:41 UTC 2005


There is a pretty good article on the Washington Post website about  
Altnet's latest bid to be the least popular players in the peer-to-peer  
space:

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3396-2005Jan12.html

One point of interest to me was that in the article an Altnet lawyer  
claims that at least one of these patents was previously upheld in  
court:

"But Hadley said a federal jury has already upheld the validity of at  
least one of the patents. In 2000, one of the original patent holders  
-- a San Francisco firm called Digital Island Inc. -- sued Web content  
manager Akamai Technologies, claiming that the company was violating  
the hashing patent. Akamai prevailed in the ensuing trial, when a jury  
decided that the company was not using the patented technology, but the  
same panel concluded that the patent itself was valid, Hadley said."

Clearly I am not a lawyer (and everything I know about IP law I wish I  
didn't need to know), but I am not sure why a jury, having decided that  
Akamai doesn't use the patented technology, would bother to comment on  
whether the patent was valid.  Was the validity of the patent even  
contested?

I have found what may be this ruling at:

    
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/zobel/pdf/ 
cable%20v%20akamai%20revised.pdf

If this is, indeed, the relevant document (and it probably isn't), then  
it makes no comment as to the validity of the 5,978,791 patent, it  
merely points out that Akamai didn't use it in the first place.

Perhaps someone could comment on whether Hadley's claim is accurate -  
and what it means?

All the best,

Ian.

--
Founder, The Freenet Project	http://freenetproject.org/
CEO, Cematics Ltd				http://cematics.com/
Personal Blog					http://locut.us/~ian/blog/




More information about the P2p-hackers mailing list