The recently announced rival Ethernet security offerings from 3Com Corp and Synoptics Communications Corp – LAN Security Architecture and LattisSecure, are based on ideas that look so similar that a patent clash is on the cards, according to 3Com’s Chris Gahan. The UK market development manager thinks that should the patents be granted, they would impact on Synoptic’s offerings. Gahan says that 3Com filed patents covering its security approach around December 1989 in both the US and Europe and that the latter has recently been published.
Agrees
Meanwhile, Kevin Woods, Synoptics’ US-based product marketing manager, agrees that both product lines basically do the same thing but says that Synoptics too, has filed patents to secure its rights to the idea. Woods couldn’t say, however, when the patent had been filed. While the implementations differ, patent law deals with the origination of ideas. That the Synoptics and 3Com schemes for securing 10Base-T Ethernet transmissions use identical concepts is not in doubt. Both capitalise on the topology of the twisted-pair-based local area network, with a central hub joining stations, each of which sits at the end of its own piece of wire. The other key to the approach depends on the format of Ethernet packets, in which the destination address sits at the head of the packet, followed by the source address and the actual user data trailing at the end. It is the fact that the destination address is at the head which is vital. In a normal 10Base-T network a packet arriving from station X and destined for station Z travels outwards from the hub down all of the radiating network segments, irrespective of whether the addressee station is at the end of the wire. Under the 3Com-Synoptics scheme, this also happens, but each port monitors the destination address as it passes through the hub and begins to travel up the segment. Should the destination tally with the station at the end of the the segment, nothing happens and the packet is left alone to complete its journey. If, on the other hand, the destination address differs, the user data is ‘sprayed’ with random data, thereby obliterating it.
There are only so many ways of doing things, and with the networking field becoming more and more competitive, it is not surprising that two companies, 3Com Corp and Synoptics Communications Corp seem to have come up with a very similar solution to the same problem – and needless to say, both have slapped in patent applications to protect their intellectual property rights. Its the kind of situation that delights the patent lawyers and almost nobody else. Chris Rose reports on a battle that is looming.
The important thing to recognise is that all this occurs in real time, avoiding any switching and leaving throughputs unaffected – the beginning of the packet, containing the destination address, is already making its way up the outgoing segment as the following data, including the source address, is destroyed. Clearly the approach is easily implemented only if an Ethernet network built to a star topology is used. It will not work on a bus-based Ethernet since every station is attached to the same segment of the network. It is just about possible to envisage the approach working with Token Ring based around a central media access unit. Here each lobe of the ring leaves the hub, attaches a station and then returns to the hub. Destroying data in this case is simply not on, since it must be left intact to be passed on to the next station. It might be possible for an intelligent media access unit to decide whether to pass a packet up a lobe or alternatively to pass it on to the next one around the ring. But, there are problems with this approach. It is complicated, needs fast switching, careful timing and the result would be expensive. Moreover, it is not really a Token Ring system any more.
Admit
Both companies seem prepared to admit that their systems use the same concept – and in patent law, great importance is attached to the concepts underlying technological implementations, according to Brian
Turner, associate lawyer with Baker & McKenzie. Much will depend on the level of technical detail used in the party’s patent claims. The practicalities of winning European and US patents differ considerably. In Europe, the first to file a valid patent wins, says Turner, whereas in the US, the process is considerably more complicated, with investigations into who first conceived the idea and who was the first to put it into practice. Moreover, applying for a US patent can be a long, drawn-out process, during which anyone one else can slap in their own competing application. The result is that any action arising from a 3Com-Synoptics clash is not likely for some years, and even then the resolution is likely to be low-key since the two companies have enjoyed good relations until now, with 3Com buying some Synoptics products on an OEM basis. That relationship has cooled a bit following 3Com’s purchase of BICC Data Networks, but even now the two are being very restrained over the similarities between their security architectures.
