ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify]

2004-09-08 11:21:10


On Sep 8, 2004, at 1:04 PM, wayne wrote:


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.

This is an issue exists regardless of the IPR holder and the licensing terms, so you run the risk of a patent troll in any scenario. Spam prevention has a history of frivolous patent claims.


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?

I can't speak for Yakov, but I'm suggesting that this working group ignore the IPR issue as irrelevant. You may or may not choose to ignore it for yourself.

Margaret.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>