Harold A'Hole wrote:
One additional point to this, for those in the "it's just a fax" camp;
Look at it this way.
Microsoft will get to know who all of your customers whom you give the
right to sublicense your technology, if those customers are to use your
Sender-ID implementation as bundled into your MTA. There's no prevision
preventing Microsoft from using that information to promote its own
technology solution to your customers.
Nobody ever says why MSFT would prosecute someone who didn't have the
license. In court, it would be pointed out:
* MSFT does not charge anything for the license, so its damages would be
non-existent
* MSFT gives the technology away freely to those who send in a fax
* MSFT clearly intended it to be royalty free as it was given over to an
international standards body
So in court they'd have to show why a particular user who hadn't sent in a
fax should be prosecuted? They would have to show harm done to them. It
could easily be remedied by sending in the fax or by no longer using the
code. MSFT would be a pariah for such an attack. They already have
monopoly issues, and spending good money to prosecute over a free license is
simply absurd. The fear is just fear mongering, like worrying that the U.S.
will turn its military against its own citizens. It could happen, but it
won't because it's politically untenable and legally weak.
While all of that may be true, what matters is what implementors think.
If the entire licensing issue muddles the waters to a point where
significant deployment problems will occur, it is something we should
take into consideration.
Yakov