Re: on the topic of IPR

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > I was one of those people who openly speculated about 
> > Microsoft usurping SPF.
> > From a PR standpoint I somehow doubt that Microsoft is going to
> be known primarily for having created SenderID in ten years time.
As Markus Stumpf pointed out, Microsoft created Caller-ID, while 
Sender-ID is the product of this group. Also, Caller-ID itself is based 
on the SPF which is based on RMX and DMP plus discussions in the ASRG, 
which in turn are based on the ideas of Paul Vixie, and others. But I am 
digressing.
> There is a PR story here and it is a pretty good one, large
> corporation teams up with the leader of a grass roots effort
> to kill spam, IETF acts quickly to save the Internet.
>
> Now that story is not a 100% complete version of events, but
> it is something that the press can explain and can use to 
> promote Sender-ID and get it deployed. And everyone comes out
> a hero - including the media.
>
> What is more everyone comes off as bigger heros than they do
> if they take the go it alone route.
In the context of what we are trying to determine, this is important as 
far as it can help in deployment. PR by itself might not matter, but if 
it leads to faster deployment, then it is a large plus. If large ISPs 
commit to deployment, thats another plus also.
> To obtain a WS-Security license all you have to do is to fill
> in a Web form. Sure I do not like to have to do this just to 
> visit the Washington Post or New York Times, but I am prepared
> to put up with a minor piece of inconvenience. 
There is a crucial difference here. WS-Security, and many other 
standards out there are not nearly as prevalent and largely used as 
email standards are. The only things that have similar market effects is 
the Eolas patent and the TCP/IP security IPR issues with Cisco.
The problem is that the amount of people needed to be convinced, and the 
amount of people bothered by this minor inconvenience, as well as the 
possible problems integrating this into open source MTAs which run 
majority of the Internet's email, is a by far much larger than most 
similar occurances to date.
The question we should be asking is whether this inconvenience big 
enough to cause problems with deployment. As RFC 3669 puts it: "... 
terms can make a technology unusable even if it is perfect otherwise"
> I want Microsoft to be placed squarely in the firing line of 
> all and any patent trolls that come after us. I have never
> had any difficulty with a piece of declared IPR, its the 
> undeclared IPR owned by a law firm we should be worrying about.
I really don't understand this logic nor do I understand the logic of 
why this license is being insisted on. Eolas went after Microsoft not 
because of a patent that Microsoft had, but rather because they made a 
web browser. Simply developing Exchange and Hotmail, in lieu of any 
patents will make Microsoft a large and juicy target for IPR. Therefore, 
what has placed Microsoft in the firing line is their involvement in 
email, not their patents. Even if they would not have filed a patent 
application, some troll patenting RMX or SPF, would have a field day anyway.
Additionally, IMHO the reciprocal license will not help either, since a 
lot of the patent trolls maybe law firms or not even in the email 
business (for example, Eolas does not make web browsers). The reciprocal 
license does not protect Microsoft from claims of some law firm or shell 
company that comes and sues for patent infringement. Therefore, saying 
that the reason for requiring the license is to protect from patent 
trolls, as Harry said during the meeting in San Diego, is illogical. It 
would be helpful if Microsoft can elaborate as to why they are insisting 
on such license.
Therefore, I don't understand why Microsoft is insisting on such 
license. Considering that it may seriously hinder deployment as several 
people have testified, it would make more sense that a license without a 
requirement to sign an agreement is issued. If the patent trolls will 
come, the license will not stop them anyway but the patent might. This 
way Microsoft can have its cake and eat it to.
Yakov