On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 19:28:32 -0400, Yakov Shafranovich
<research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> wrote:
A few comments. First of all, we do not know whether the IPR claims
extend to SPF classic or not.
You are correct that we don't know whether SPF or SPF2 is covered by
pending patent claims from Microsoft. However, we *do* know that any
such claims are *not* covered by Microsoft's license agreement. Thus,
even if we were to adopt Sender ID as the standard, should Microsoft
subsequently be granted a patent covering the SPF2 record format, it
would no longer be possible to deploy Sender ID without a new license
from Microsoft.
If, at this point, sender ID were derailed by a patent from Microsoft
over SPF, I think this would pretty clearly demonstrate bad faith on
Microsoft's part. Since we have been instructed to assume good faith
on the part of all parties, I think this means operating under the
assumption that:
1) The pending patent rights granted by Microsoft's Sender ID
agreement are sufficient to deploy Sender ID (at least for the subset
of software authors who find the conditions of the agreement
acceptable), and therefore
2) Microsoft does not have any pending claims over the SPF record format.
So yes, anybody, even Microsoft, might have patent claims that might
prohibit just about any recommendation of the MARID working group.
But we still have to make progress, and the best we can do is deal
with the most likely scenario, which is that Microsoft probably has
applied for patents, that the patents probably cover the portions of
Sender ID they have offered to license--namely the pra and or core
documents--and finally that until we have more information, none of
the MARID proposals is any more or less likely to be affected by
third-party patent holders.
David