----- Original Message -----
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>
To: "'Chuck Mead'" <csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com>;
<ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: Licensing issues
Accusing Microsoft of bad faith less than 48 hours after the request
for clarification is made does not appear to me to be a good faith
complaint.
In regards to myself, where I was chastised for my what I deem valid
concerns, I wish to clarify that my critical concern is that the "MARID"
solution is being molded that is not ideal for world wide consideration and
it is based on borrowed concepts that make it extremely touchy from top to
bottom.
In my opinion the scope of MARID has been lost, and regardless of how
relaxed Microsoft licensing position will be, I firmly believed it is
baseless and doesn't belong in what should be an sound technical MARID
framework.
Just consider this:
The Microsoft "MARID Model" for flawed and weak. Therefore, there will be a
high propensity for a better "mouse trap" invention. Will a weak Microsoft
model prevent new better discoveries? If so how? You don't patent just one
thing. You encapsulated with other concepts. That is the problem: the other
concepts are all prior art. In other words:
2821+ DNS+2822 = SenderID patent
The ingredients are all prior art. The patent guidelines specifically says
the "obvious" environment elements can not be used to stop new inventions.
MS must throw in something unique. The patent protects the usage of the
same unique element. That's it!
So what is unique here? Nothing, it was cloned from SPF.
This is what makes it so crazy. The only thing that can make it unique is
the absence of a non-existence concept:
2821+ DNS+MISSING SUBMITTER+2822 = SenderID patent
In other words, systems that don't support submitter or are not aware of it
and use POST SMTP validation might fall under the MS SenderID IP claim.
The problem is that the better "Mouse Trap" might be invented:
2821+ DNS+MISSING SUBMITTER+2822 = Better Mouse Trap
that is based to work on a concept that isn't event a standard!! A missing
non-existing element?
Is the better Mouse Trap limited to 2821 only?
Look, either way, the very fact it is even issue now makes this current
MARID model smell bad.
We have a unique opportunity here that doesn't come around too many times in
a life time, specially in the short history of online data communications.
We can't afford a questionable or weak solution plagued with many technical,
social, political, legal, international, administrative, adoption and
deployment issues. One that is so flawed technically, there will be a need
for a better Mouse Trap.
We need a MARID Framework that is:
- 100% Open Standard for world wide fast deployment,
- Maximizes solving the target problem of spoofers,
- Maximizes Backward compatibility,
- Offers a smooth transition,
- Minimal redesign cost with SMTP software vendors,
- Minimal Implementation cost,
- Minimal affect on Network bandwidth,
- Offers opportunities for a better "Mouse Trap,"
- Yet still allows the inventor to protect his IP,
- But independent on the MARID framework.
In other words, the new MARID framework is this:
2821 + DNS + 2822 + METHOD = Final MARID Authentication Result
I have such a FRAMEWORK.
The Framework and Final Result is not patentable because I will specifically
say it is PUBLIC DOMAIN.
The METHOD may be patentable, but the FRAMEWORK is not and the patentee can
not use the FRAMEWORK as encapsulated ingredients to stop new methods based
on the new MARID framework.
This allows for the best "Mouse Trap" to be invented. Let the better Mouse
Trap win!
I am putting multiple drafts right now that will keep in scope yet provides
exactly what the world is looking for. I don't care if no one likes it. I
am tired of what I am experiencing here that will have a major impact on my
company and livelihood. At the very minimum, I must publish them in a
public forum to stop any future IP claim.
The framework will throw a monkey wrench in the any Microsoft SENDERID
claim. Sure, they can certainly file it. The 1996 USPTO patentability
guidelines were relaxed to allow for baseless prior art claims. It doesn't
mean it is valid. However, a patent greatest strength is not stopping others
from doing the same thing, but as a tool to put the burden on others to
disprove it.
We must not allow any future standard of the internet mail system begin with
flawed, costly and problematic concerns.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com