-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 2:22 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
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.
The scope is precisely defined in the license as the
intersection between
the patent claims and the necessary claims required to implement the
spec.
Specifically:
Both Sender ID: Authenticating E-mail <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt>
and Purported Responsible Address in E-mail Messages
<draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in combination.
i.e. THE WHOLE THING.
In other words there is no line between what is, or is not covered by the IPR.
Because certainly
some of sender id CANNOT be covered by the IPR by IETF rules (if I understand
them correctly)
because at least some of the sender id concepts were invented on the mailing
list.
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).
What is 'bullying' about answering an argument with facts.
You asserted
that the argument was trivial.
Statements like "distinct lack of comprehension" is bullying because it is
habitually cruel or
overbearing and its not a fact because it is neither known, nor demonstrated.
The literal interpretation of my statement was, and still is,
the "difference" that YOU stated is
"trivial and irrelevant", not the legal arguments themselves.
The difference between the patent and the realization of the patent
is the whole core of the legal arguments.
And the lack of distinction is the problem.
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.
Again, the license is stated as "everything" despite at least some of the ideas
in sender Id cannot
be part of the IPR because:
1) The IPR occurred before sender id was formed (or has the IPR evolved to
include new stuff)
2) The IETF policy on ideas originally submitted via IETF (do I need to cite
this for you?)
Despite it is stated, it is not "very clear" at all.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085