"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
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!
Again, read the license, it is very clear that it covers the
intersection between any patent claims owned by or granted to
Microsoft and those needed to implement Sender-ID.
But the intersection between an unknown and anything else is also an
unknown. As Microsoft have given very little information about "Patent
claims owned by or granted to Microsft". This seems like a very open
and vague. If the patent has already been applied for, then surely it
does no harm to state exactly what will be covered by that patent if
it is granted. Sender-ID is the amalgum of Microsoft's Caller-ID and
SPF-classic.
This apparent reluctance of Microsoft to specify exactly what is (or
would be) covered by their potential IPR seems to me to just as
ridiculous as has happened (probably more than once) when an author
submitted a book to the UK security service for clearing under the
Official Secrets Act only to be told "You must change parts of the
book, but we cannot tell you which parts as that would let you know
what you have correctly deduced."