Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:
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".
Andrew Newton wrote:
Is there a connection between "verifiably homegrown" and patent claims?
You are correct that the parties are unknown. If this were an arcane
subject area, it is most likely that they would remain unknown and
probably non-existent. However e-mail and electronic messaging and
anti-spam are hot areas of intellectual property. I did take a stroll
through the USPTO database and there are numerous, numerous patents in
this area. And these do not include the pending patents that cannot be
seen.
Also, if company XYZ came forward tomorrow and claimed covering IPR,
should we ignore them?
Ok, so now we have the *FEAR* of existing patents, the *UNCERTAINTY* of
future patents, and the *DOUBT* that the IETF and free/open source
communities could defend against the possible onslaught of submarine
patents.
<sarcasm>
Sounds to me like a good reason to go with Microsoft. We all know they have
our best welfare at heart, and they will protect us against this FUD.
</sarcasm>
We have at least one technology (SPF) which is in the public domain, is
superior at solving the problem this working group was chartered to solve,
and is widely deployed and tested on all the major MTAs.
So, why are we spinning our wheels with an privately owned IP which is
encumbered by an onerous license, doesn't appear to solve the problem, and
has never been deployed or tested on any MTA?
Michael R. Brumm