Re: on the topic of IPR

Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:

> 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.
   If there is a strong case for prior art - then why is there any 
issue at all ? Microsoft can either produce an acceptable license, and 
be part of the process, or not and decide whether they beleive the 
results of MARID infringe on their IP.
   Microsoft's participation is to be highly desired, but if the 
resulting standard includes any License from Microsoft, then the 
standard itself becomes evidence of the validity of the patent on the 
licensed IP. If there is a strong beleif that the IP is not patentable 
either through prior art or otherwise then MARID should not be taking a 
position validating it.