What the lawyers and suits think (was e: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004)
2004-09-11 22:48:18
All,
This post to the list has been rolling around in the back of my mind
for a few days. I hope that you will find it useful, or at least
interesting, and I hope that it is appropriate to this discussion.
I'm piggy-backing it on to this below post, because I wanted to respond
to it, and it is related:
It seems I made a mistake and did not notice that chairs did not say
that
we should not work alternatives AT ALL but said that we should not work
on alternatives that WOULD BE covered by patent application.
The above is appropriate, however I note that chairs said that we
should
not work on alernatives that "reasonably thought to be covered by the
patent application". My objection still stands that in itself is
meaningless because we'll know if alernative is covered when there
would be another IPR disclosure as it relates to such possible
alernative
draft. Until there is one, we can not reasonable be expected to know
what
would be covered by patent application because we have not seen one!
Reading this with my lawyer, geek, and lawyer geek hats on, I take this
to mean "reasonably given what we do know or suspect of the patent".
To take it to the extreme for the sake of example, it would be
reasonable to believe that an exact Sender I.D. clone would be covered
by the patent. It would not be reasonable to think that an elephant
would be covered by the patent. Somewhere between the range of
"elephant" and "exact clone" there are things on which one might focus
which one could reasonably imagine would probably be covered by the
undisclosed patent to the extent that we may imagine what is in it.
I want to take a moment now to explain to those of you who may not
know, exactly how lawyers and corporate suits in general look at the
sorts of people who take part in working groups such as these, and in
particular how they look at their (i.e. your) concerns. Note that I am
*not* speaking of MS' lawyers or suits in particular (and I couldn't,
as I have not discussed these things with them) - I am speaking from
years of my own experience.
First, there are _very_ few lawyers who are also geeks *and* who also
*grok* email issues on a substantive technical level in general, and
spam issues in particular. I am one of fewer than I can count on the
fingers of both hands, and then *only* because Paul Vixie took me
in-house at MAPS way back when, and took me under his wing, and so
under his patient tutelage I came to understand way more than I even
knew there *was* to know about the issues and inner workings of the
processes.
For the most part, lawyers and corporate executives (most especially
the lawyers) think of you guys as very smart, driven, but slightly
strange and obsessed people who work down in the email boiler room -
they want you to make the things work, but your concerns carry about as
much weight with them as an assembly line worker's concerns carry with
the lawyers and execs over at General Motors. Don't believe me? Ask
Paul, who I think will confirm that lawyers' and corporate executives'
world views of these issues *rarely even focus on the same things*, let
alone come to a confluence of opinions, as those of the people who are
actually driving the email systems.
Your concerns have almost *nothing* to do with the running of a
corporation or the furthering of its corporate objectives. Your
objectives are _not_ their objectives - they rarely cross - they aren't
even parallel - in fact they are on completely different planes.
Think about it - you here are focused on solving a problem - they are
focused on creating a product, and on protecting their client's
corporate interests.
I would posit that this is the reason that you have very dedicated
people here like Harry Katz who are sincerely and ferverently working
on a solution, and that isn't at all at odds with the issues coming
from the lawyers and suits at the same company. The people upstairs
don't speak your language. They don't share your concerns. They don't
have the same focus. Had I been in their position, say, ten years ago,
I'd have been the same - I'd have been saying "those email geeks want
us to do *what*? That's not how it works up here in the *real* world."
The irony, of course, in all of this, is that it is those very same
email geeks on who adoption of _any_ standard relies. Oh sure, it's
very clever to get several major bulk email senders to agree to a
standard - but at the end of the day it doesn't matter, because it is
the email *receivers*, not the email senders, whose adoption will make
or break any proposed standard. Every email sender on the planet can
adopt Standard X, but if no receivers are cuing on Standard X, then so
what?
So the trick is to get the lawyers and the suits to realize that your
concerns aren't just something they have to endure - they are something
they have to satisfy.
Anne
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- What the lawyers and suits think (was e: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004),
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <=
|
|
|