Subject: Comment on drafts in last call

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:49:10 +0200 (EET)

Regarding the Secure Shell I-D's presently in WG Last Call:

The name "SSH" is, and always has been, a major identifier of SSH
Communications Security Corp. To protect the identifier in commercial
settings, we have obtained trademark registration for the name in the
United States, Europe, and Japan.

The Secure Shell protocol has often been referred to with the name
"SSH". This has not always been a source of confusion, as until some
time ago we were the only major source of products associated with the
Secure Shell protocol.  Another reason adding to the confusion is that
the user base of Secure Shell products has only recently grown well
outside the group of early adopters who know the technology and the
field.

Presently, with the user base continually growing, the confusion of
the protocol and a major participant in the field is real and
increasing.  We note that the confusion affects all producers of
Secure Shell products - we often get the blame as well as the praise
for products made by others. This is not a benefit for anyone.

Official names in standard documents have a large influence on the
usage of terms in everyday practice.  Therefore, we present the wish
that the IETF would not elect to support the present situation and the
continuing increase in the confusion.  We note that RFC 2026, section
10.1, states that

   In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the
   intention is to benefit the Internet community and the public at
   large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others.

To minimize the confusion and to reach the objectives of that section, we
propose that the official name of the protocol - which is defined by the
titles of the corresponding Internet Drafts - be changed to refer to
"Secure Shell".

Markus Levlin
Intellectual Property Rights Manager
SSH Communications Security Corp

---

From: Dale Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:36:03 -0800

> outside the group of early adopters who know the technology and the

I have a question.  Once the term "ssh" has been used a port name
identifier in our /etc/services for years and years, and that tag has
been in the public domain for such a long time that a trademark wouldn't
necessarily be enforceable?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dale Harris  <[email-masked]>   GPG key: 372FBD57    http://www.maybe.org/

---

From: Thor Simon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:45:10 -0500

> United States, Europe, and Japan.

Hey, look!  Their low-quality, high-priced lawyers told them to "assert
their trademark rights" again in Yet Another feeble attempt to cover
up the fact that they screwed up.

Once more, folks, the real deal on this:

1) They have no trademark on "ssh" nor on "SSH".  They have only a
   trademark on *one particular typed representation* of the letters
   "ssh", as used in their corporate logo.

2) They have fraudulently claimed here and elsewhere that they own the
   name "ssh" and that nobody else can use it, when in fact they own
   only the rights to one particular drawing of those glyphs.

3) They have wasted countless time, effort, and money of the other
   participants in this working group with specious threats of legal
   action here and elsewhere.  Unfortunately, even their own law firm
   admits, in those very threats, that:

4) "SSH" is an abbreviation for "Secure Shell", and thus...

5) "SSH" cannot be trademarked, as abbreviations cannot be trademarked.

Need I mention that 6) "Secure Shell" is a generic term, which cannot be
trademarked, thus rendering this whole debate even more idiotic?

I have supplied copious documentation of all of these points both in this
forum and (with the help of Jason Thorpe) at an IETF meeting.  This
documentation has included copies of all trademark files, with full history,
for any mark containing "ssh" in its description, as well as copies of
extensive correspondence with attorneys, including the "smoking gun" letter
in which SSH's own counsel admits that "ssh" is an abbreviation.

As evidence of further duplicity, while originally attempting to coerce
this working group into changing the name of the protocol to "Secure Shell",
these same parties had a *pending trademark application for "Secure Shell"*.

This kind of continued harassment of other IETF participants is completely
unconscionable.  It is *precisely* why the IETF should have a policy
requiring authors or editors of standards-track documents to disclaim
trademark rights to the words used in the document title and to the protocol
name.  Unfortunately, when I last brought this up in POISSON, which our WG
chair suggested was the proper forum for these concerns, I was pretty much 
shouted down.

Perhaps the continued existence of the problem (unethical draft 
authors/editors naming protocols/standards so as to set up intellectual
property ambushes for other implementors) will serve to help persuade that
the problem is real, and that some solution needs to be found.

For the moment, it would be nice if *this particular* harassment would
stop, before it wastes enough of my time and money that it becomes
economical for me to simply seek a declaratory judgement to shut these
idiots up.  My lawyer is a nice guy and I don't like wasting his time
dealing with the corporate drone morons who are milking SSH Comm Oy for
billable hours after their own mistakes have helped make their own client's
position not only unethical, but also totally untenable.

Thor

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:07:49 -0500 (EST)

> titles of the corresponding Internet Drafts - be changed to refer to

This proposal has been made and rejected by the working group.  IMHO it is
not worth our time to discuss it again.

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[email-masked]>
   Sr. Research Systems Programmer
   School of Computer Science - Research Computing Facility
   Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 11:21:43 +0000

> chair suggested was the proper forum for these concerns, I was pretty much

Perhaps POISSON is a red herring? :-)

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff