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.
My point was that the fear that Microsoft would somehow gain
undeserved prominence from or 'usurp' SenderID is misplaced.
I don't think it figures.
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 Eolas patent covers work that I did before the alleged inventor.
Microsoft has clearly decided it is not going to get taken by another
Eolas type patent. Short of the USPTO burning down a second time
and all records being lost (if only!) the only way to get any
protection against a patent suit is to file for a patent yourself
and hope you got yours in first.
Then you file continuations and interference claims for 20 years.