Re: on the topic of IPR

(I haven't had time to post in the last month or so, due to moving, an 
illness in the family, and my own anti-spam project at work.  But I have 
been mostly keeping up with the discussion.)
Regarding the MS IPR and license, I have many thoughts and feelings about 
it, some of them conflicting.  In general, I believe the following:
1. I would rather have MS on board than not.  While I don't like the 
"contribution" being encumbered, I also see some advantage to having MS as 
a partner.  Despite the encumbrance, I still think the distribution and 
usage of Sender ID will be faster and wider than without MS as a key 
partner.  In other words, we as a group have put up with their license, so 
I am hoping MS will return the favor and implement Sender ID early and 
often, publicize and market it, and use their big stick on a few others to 
get them to hum along too :)
2. If the license proves to be a problem, MS is free to release their stuff 
under a modified license later.  If enough people complain about, say, not 
getting posted to a mirror site because the mirror site owners and 
operators are afraid they will be accused of "distributing" protected 
material, perhaps MS will modify their license.  They already have modified 
it a bit.
3. If MS IPR proves to be not worth the pain caused, we (ietf, marid, or 
individuals) all have alternatives to choose from that are not that 
unsavory.  In my mind, the advantage of including MS as a partner is not 
that their IPR is that much better...  But, if this doesn't work out, very 
few components need to be switched out to remove their IPR from play.
So, in general I support going forward with SenderID becoming an RFC.


I'm going to rant a bit here, but don't let my rant below interfere with 
the high-level assessment, that we should go forward with Sender ID.
<rant>
MS employees had a choice.  They could have chosen to participate in this 
working group much like the rest of us have -- by contributing their ideas 
without worrying about whether they were IPR.  They could have come to the 
table with some good ideas that were NOT encumbered.  They could have 
fought harder against their own legal team to just let it go, and not worry 
about who "owns" what.
Instead MS employees chose to "contribute" something encumbered.  (And I 
use the term "contribute" loosely here because it's clear that MS still 
"owns" it - the rest of us will just be living in it rent free for its 
useful life.  To my mind a real "contribution" of ideas would be totally 
public domain with no license needed, and the patent claim would be 
withdrawn.
MS employees also chose to not even disclose WHAT THE PENDING PATENT IS 
FOR.  The fact that they kept the "what is or is not pending a patent" a 
guarded secret shows that their interests come first, and makes me think 
that they are not hanging out on this group for an altruistic purpose.
Maybe their hands were tied, but still, they could have fought back against 
their own lawyers, and in doing so demonstrated to the group and the world 
that they are interested in contributing to the greater good and not 
working their own agendas through us.  I have some respect for Jim and 
Harry, but I would have had a lot more if they had been able to come back 
to the group and say "Hey we hogtied the lawyers and whatever part of the 
document you want to use, go for it"

So.  In the future, if I participate in other working groups, my lesson 
learned from this one is that I WILL look a gift horse in the mouth. 
Encumbered IPR is NOT FREE.  If it doesn't have a substantial benefit over 
the non-encumbered idea, the non-encumbered idea should always win.  A 
group such as ours should not hand-wave and dismiss IPR concerns from the 
start by saying "A royalty-free license will be provided later". 
Encumbered ideas should be entertained, but not as welcome as ideas given 
free and clear.
I would suggest to any future group considering protected property as part 
of a proposed standard, that they should 1. evaluate whether the licensed 
property is clearly better, and hence worth the hassle of licensing, and 2. 
evaluate the license itself early and often, and not just accept a promise 
that a license will be provided later.  If it is really the *best* idea, it 
will win, and people will license it.  If it is just as good as the free 
idea, TAKE the free idea over the licensed one :)
</rant>


All that said, I still think the end product is worth it.  What was brought 
to the table was nowhere near as great as the collaborative, creative 
process we all participated in.  The input drafts were good.  The RFC we 
will come up with will be better than any of the inputs.
And, I sincerely hope that MARID continues to do useful work and doesn't 
stop at the first RFC.  There will be revisions, best practices statements, 
actual implementations to share and test, feedback to be shared on honing 
the process, etc.  There are statistics to be gathered and shared, 
forwarders to be pestered and guided toward doing the right thing, 
whitelists to create, maintain, and use, and much more.  Even if MARID no 
longer exists as an IETF group at some point in the future, we have still 
formed some very good relationships and I would love to keep communication 
lines open :)

--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>