on the topic of IPR
2004-08-27 03:48:15
It is one of the jobs of co-chairs to facilitate discussion of working
group topics. Not that the issue of IPR is being debated lightly,
however we would like to raise a few discussion points that may have
been overlooked or given light treatment.
- Many a message have been dedicated toward discussing the potential
abuse Microsoft may undertake while armed with a patent. However,
there has been little discussion regarding Microsoft's willingness and
ability (via deep pockets) to fend off counter patent claims. Should
Sender ID go forward with the acceptance of Microsoft's IPR, it leaves
little doubt that another entity claiming rights to such technology
will have to go through Microsoft to find remedy. However, if MARID
were to produce another standard such as Classic SPF or even CSV, who
will defend a legal claim against it?
- Some of the participants have speculated openly that Microsoft's IPR
claims might also cover the SPF syntax even though Microsoft has not
specifically attributed their claim to draft-ietf-marid-protocol.
Given that Microsoft's patent application and original IPR claim
covered a Caller ID document which used XML and not SPF, is this a
reasonable assumption? It should be noted that it was the MARID
working group that persuaded Microsoft to use the SPF syntax.
Microsoft's first choice was XML.
- If it is reasonable to assume that Microsoft's patent application
and claimed IPR can and/or do reach beyond draft-ietf-marid-core and
draft-ietf-marid-pra, is it not the best course of action to take
Microsoft's offer of a royalty-free, nondiscriminatory and reasonable
license given that a rejection of Sender ID as a standard has no weight
on the standing of their claim. In other words, if it is believed that
their claim could cover other work product of MARID, then would not the
best course of action be to secure the best-possible license?
- On the issue of deployment, there have been many messages regarding
the adoption of Sender ID (as a note, the chair's instructions
specifically called for opinion about personal deployment and not
speculation as to the actions of others). While many believe that
Sender ID's encumbrances will slow adoption because it is not as
friendly as desired toward open source, it has been noted that Qmail
also has an equally or more unfriendly license toward open source yet
is one of the most popularly used MTAs.
-andy
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- on the topic of IPR,
Andrew Newton <=
|
|
|