On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 06:28:00PM -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
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.
So why does Microsoft claim everywhere Sender-Id is their effort?
Callid-Id is at best, nothing more.
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.
Correct me if I am wrong ...
1) Prior art nullifies a patent (I think this is even the case in the USA)
2) This mailing list is publicly archived a few places and mailboxes
throughout the Internet. Newspapers have writen articles up and down
about how Caller-Id/Sender-Id works. So the principle is well documented.
3) No one can claim IPR unless s/he can prove s/he invented it first
which will be kinda hard because of 2)
4) Now:
a) Nobody owns the patent -> nothing to worry, no one can claim it from
now on (or better even since about 1.5 years ago)
b) Microsoft owns the patent -> we all have to worry
c) someone claims prior art
-> MS will loose the patent
-> s/he can register the patent
So for me there is no difference whether MS has the patent besides the
fact that if MS has the patent we're all at their will.
The difference for MS is only they can control the Sender-Id technique
with the patent.
I really don't understand why the license has to have any restrictions?
Why do they put in this sublicensing thingy?
Why don't they simply say:
- we hold the patent
- we grant everyone and every company a 20/50/100 years irrevocable
license to make use of the IPR covered by this patent free of
charge.
They could even transfer the patent to the IETF/ISOC and make a contract
they will never have to pay any license fees nor can someone revoke the
license for them to use the IPR covered.
They do neither and because of that I neither trust nor do I believe them.
This is nothing special about Microsoft, it is generic to companies that
size and that historic behaviour (and to a lot of others, too).
\Maex
--
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"