Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID

Sam Varshavchik wrote:

> Ummm, MSFT can certainly sue for an injunction prohibiting the F/OSS 
> developer from using patented IP without a license.
   You can not get a broad "nobody can infringe on my patent anywhere" 
injucntion. M$ would have to institute proceedings against each 
individial infringer.
  
   I beleive preliminary injunctions are granted based on the 
likelyhood of M$ to prevail, the patent will be presumed valid, But if 
there are substantial questions regarding
whether there is actual infringement an injuction will not likely be 
granted. They are also granted based on the potential harm to the patent 
holder. Since all Microsoft is asking for
a license is registration, the damages that an injunction would prevent 
probably are not significant enough to warant one.

> Since, as you've acknowledged, the F/OSS developer is not likely to 
> have the financial resources for a protracted fight, and challenging 
> the patent, Microsoft's legal expenses will be rather minimal.
> Do you think that there would be any value for Microsoft in blocking a 
> competing F/OSS implementation of Sender-ID?

   M$ can not afford a fight either. They may have plenty of money, but 
they are significantly short on good will. The DOJ may have wimped out 
for the moment, but they are still watching things. Ashcroft is not
a Freind of Bill, the Democrats if elected are even less so. The EU is 
still proceeding, and world markets are enormously Microsoft unfriendly.
   M$ will benefit enormously by playing a key role in this standard. 
Everyone will suffer if they do not.
   Conversly, they will suffer if they are perceived as an impediment 
to the solution to this problem. M$ has an enormous PR problem. I can 
not think of a major company that is perceived of so poorly.
  
   The resources available in an F/OSS vs. Microsoft engagement might 
prove much more significant than you perceive. The SCO vs. IBM case 
might be more of a model.
   In the event they beleive it is in their own self interests - and 
weakening Microsoft may be in most of the rest of the industries self 
interest. A significant amount of Linux's current success, can be attributed
   to industry efforts to prick Microsoft. I would also not 
underestimate the desire of other major corporate sponsors to take a 
possition that makes them look like the good guy. Further ignoring the 
resources from
   Linux corporate sponsors. F/OSS has gottent large enough and 
cohesive enough to fend for itself. While there might be some F/OSS 
legal resources available, the research resources would be enormous.
   Again witness the SCO vs. IBM dispute. Research is the bane of any 
IP claim. Prior art is somewhat difficult and often expensive for a 
small business to prove, But the F/OSS community can probably provide 
Published prior art
for just about any software concept. I understand there ar 2,000,000 
F/OSS developers. Most are deeply steeped in this industry.
   Again using the SCO vs. IBM conflict as a model. I would note that 
Microsoft clearly wants SCO to triumph, but to the same extent has been 
unwilling to take a high profile stance.
   Microsft can not afford to be on the wrong side of SPAMmers vs. the 
rest of us, or Micorosoft vs. F/OSS.

   If you wish to attribute evil intentions to Microsoft here, the only 
scenario I see where they win is one where they get to claim to have 
contributed to a standard, while F/OSS developers self regulate and 
refuse to
   impliment it because of Microsoft's License. IP rights and patent 
law are just tools. The real battleground is one of perception. 
Microsoft is not below sabotaging F/OSS, but is unlikely to want a 
direct public confrontation.
   Microsoft is pretty bad at PR, but they are pretty good at finding 
the weaknesses of their competition and trying to exploit them.
      F/OSS developers and distributors are not going to support a 
standard that requires sending a signed license to Microsoft. Getting 
that scenario is a WIN for Microsoft. Microsoft gets to claim a 
standards compliant solution and all the F/OSS players leave the feild 
to commercial developers. If some F/OSS developer does move forward 
without licensing Sender-ID from Microsoft,  M$ starts a PR campaign 
about the lack of respect F/OSS has for IP and how they are all just a 
bunch of untrustworthy hackers anyway.
   The losing scenario for Microsoft is the perception that M$ 
splintered MARID. Leaving us all with either weaker or not broadly 
implimented solutions to this problem.
   Regardless, our responsibility has little to do with Microsoft. It 
is to get the best standard with the broadest possible implimentation. 
If we reject Sender-ID we may loose Microsoft which would be bad. If we 
do not
   we lose F/OSS which would be worse.