We've had previous discussions about IPR policy. Please see Vern Paxson's
message on the topic:
https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg01929.html
. If anyone feels the need to voice additional positions on this topic,
please feel free to address them to me off-list.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Wheeler [mailto:dwheeler(_at_)ida(_dot_)org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 6:11 PM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [Asrg] (Position): Successful anti-spam techniques
must avoid software patents
Hi - I didn't see a clear position on the ASRG main page
(http://www.irtf.org/charters/asrg.html) on software patents.
I believe any useful ASRG result MUST avoid software patents
and/or identify reasons why any patent claims are, almost
certainly, invalid. I believe the ASRG work should be based
on this position.
At the very least, any ASRG work should avoid any
software patent landmines if possible, include a patent
search to identify them, and warn potential developers of the
results of the search. Any organizations need to be REQUIRED
to explicitly reveal any patents that might apply (including
those that are pending), or everyone will risk being
exploited (I believe RAMBUS is an example of this).
Rationale: For any anti-spam technique to be widely
effective, it needs to be widely deployed. Software patents
will significantly constrain such deployment. In particular,
most email is handled at least part of the time by open
source software, and open source software cannot implement
patented concepts in the countries where the patents are valid.
For example, the mail server survey described here:
http://cr.yp.to/surveys/smtpsoftware6.txt
found that at the time the survey was made,
sendmail was still the most common SMTP server (42%),
followed by Windows Microsoft Exchange (18%),
Unix qmail (17%), Windows Ipswitch IMail (6%),
Unix smap (2%), UNIX Postfix (formerly VMailer, 2%)
and Unix Exim (1%). Sendmail, qmail, smap, postfix, and exim
could not practically implement a patented technique, so 64%
of deployed systems couldn't be upgraded to a newer version
and implement the technique (if the numbers are the same).
And that presumes that the proprietary systems would all jump
to implement a patented technique -- which is rather
unlikely. The key here isn't the exact numbers, the issue is
that if you allow patented techniques, you may end up with
undeployable ideas.
There are also many open source mail clients, including the
one in Mozilla (repackaged as Netscape Mail), and open source
mailing list software (including the one used here!). In
short, email has a significant presence of open source
software, and it would be extremely unwise for this group to
set standards that cannot be met by open source software and
would require licensing fees to be paid by some
So-called "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" (RAND) licenses
aren't enough in this case. In all cases, RAND licenses
discriminate against those who don't own the patent.
Besides, to be used in open source software it has to be
completely royalty-free, at least. Even then the popular
license used by open source software (the GPL) will find this
unacceptable unless the idea can be used for any purpose (not
just to implement the standard).
I believe this concern is quite consistent with the ASRG charter:
"ASRG will not pursue research into legal issues of spam, other
than the extent to which these issues affect, support, or
constrain the technology."
Software patents constrain the technology, so identifying and
countering any such legal problems is critical for this group.
It's true that there are patent claims for challenge-response
systems, but that primarily shows how poorly the patent
offices screen patent applications. Mailblocks of Los Altos,
California, has been suing people based on patents it owns,
6,199,102 (filed in 1997) and 6,112,227 (filed in 1998)
However, it's clear that there's extensive prior art; for
example, Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor of IBM described in 1992
a challenge-response system in which the sender would be
asked to process a particular solution before the receiver
would accept the email
(http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack/junk1.pd
f).
Thus, it's reasonable for the ASRG to work on challenge-response, since
there's good reason to believe that this nonsense patent will be overturned,
and indeed the ASRG could work to collect the data on why it should be
overturned.
If the ASRG wants anti-spam technology to be widely deployed, it needs to
make sure that its solutions don't have any serious legal impediments. And
that includes software patents.
Thank you for listening.
--- David A. Wheeler
(Speaking for myself)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg