-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:44 PM
To: 'terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip; 'Mark
Shewmaker'; 'IETF MARID List'
Subject: RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License
I disagree. I believe that the fundamental error made by
the author
is to confuse a patent use license with a copyright distribution
license.
Irrelevant when the patent is used to control the software
that would otherwise be distributed under
the copyright distribution.
On the contrary, it is like the difference between constraints on
a compiler and constraints on the code produced with that compiler.
Valid point. But the question is, will it just be applied to the compiler or
the compiled code. As
stated elsewhere, the license is now published, the scope of the IPR is NOT.
A patent is not a source code. A patent does not do anything on
its own. Source code does. Patents are a completely
different form of
intellectual property.
True, but if the patent is used to control the source code,
the difference is trivial and irrelevant.
This is a very complex legal argument, calling it trivial shows a
distinct lack of comprehension.
Your bullying tactics are still not worthy of your intelligence (or perhaps I
misjudge that).
The literal interpretation of my statement was, and still is, the "difference"
that YOU stated is
"trivial and irrelevant", not the legal arguments themselves.
TO THE PROGRAM
So what? A standard is irrelevant if there is no program
that implements it.
Plans are irrelevant if no house is ever built to them. But that
does not mean that a plans are the same as a house, the fact that
a plan is copyright and certain rights on the distribution are
reserved does not mean that the copy is encumbered.
But it does not mean the copy is NOT encumbered, either. And you keep
forgetting that the IPR is
STILL UNSTATED!!! All we have been given is the (unacceptable) license, but
not what the license
covers!