In <B468F120-017F-11D9-AFEC-000A95BC6A7E(_at_)margaretolson(_dot_)com> Margaret
Olson <margaret(_at_)margaretolson(_dot_)com> writes:
In fairness, I'll point out that they have effectively
volunteered to pay for any patent defense that is necessary, and
perhaps can not be blamed too much for a zealous approach to
preventing litigation expense.
No, MS has only volunteered to pay for any patent defense filed
against them. Patent enforcement can be selective. If Patent Trolls
Inc decides to start out small to strengthen their case, they could
start by suing sourceforge or me. Nothing in the SenderID license says that
MS would come to sourceforge's or my aid.
I suggest ignoring the patent.
Also, in <413E3531(_dot_)7010906(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> Yakov Shafranovich
<research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> writes:
Then according to RFC 3668 we can safely ignore the IPR claims is
irrelevant and frivilous like it has been done before with IDN and
IPSec. Or can we?
Both Margaret and Yakov suggest that "we" can ignore the MS patent.
There is clearly a risk involved for those who do, but apparently both
feel that the risk is pretty small.
Would those of you who suggest ignoring the patent please also
volunteer to pay for any and all costs associated with a (potential)
lawsuit from MS for not using their license?
If the risks are really as small as you two suggest, surely this
wouldn't be a problem for you to do. If you are not willing to pay
such costs, why are you suggesting that people like me who write and
distribute software that would violate the patent take that risk?
-wayne