Re: on the topic of IPR

Andrew Newton wrote:

> 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?
This is fear-mongering, I'm afraid to say.   It makes no sense to say 
"here we have some verifiably homegrown IP with no encumberances and 
here we have some encumbered IP.   Let's use the encumbered IP rather 
than the unencumbered IP because otherwise we might get sued by parties 
unknown".  In any case, the EFF and PubPat amongst others have come into 
being just for the purpose of defending the public at large against 
these types of attacks.
> -  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?
Perhaps, but you are going to have a lot of trouble convincing people 
that this is the best possible license that Microsoft could offer.   It 
may be acceptable for large companies that are technology consumers, but 
it will remain unacceptable for many developers and smaller end users.   
It is too ambiguous, too obviously anti-open source and requires you to 
waive certain important legal rights in the event of a dispute.
Your suggestion that we ought to just acquiese to MSFT because they 
might have us by the short and curlys is simply not credible.   If MARID 
chooses ClassicSPF and Microsoft is granted patents that appear to cover 
this technology, we have plenty of prior art to invalidate such patents.
> -  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.
Without speculation then, I personally will not deploy an encumbered 
Sender-ID in my company.
> -andy