on 5/28/04 7:06 PM, Meng Weng Wong at mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com
wrote:
George Webb at Microsoft will meet with the MS attorneys
next week. He has asked for our input.
If you guys have specific patent-related language that you
want to see them use, please provide it in full, and I will
pass it on to him.
If you have legal questions, it is probably best to ask a lawyer. I seem to
recall Eben Moglen, general counsel for the FSF, made some public comments
about the Microsoft Caller ID for E-Mail patent license - perhaps he would
be willing to suggest something.
That being said, one of the odder things about the Caller ID patent license
is that it doesn't actually identify the patent or patents that one is
licensing. At the very least I'd like a definition of "Necessary Claims"
that included a clause that specifically listed the patents that are being
licensed from Microsoft in addition to the already existing clause that
licenses patents that are necessarily infringed by implementing the Caller
ID specification.
Second, I am disturbed by the "Identification of Licensees" clause. As it
stands, anyone who implements or deploys Microsoft Caller ID must be willing
to give up their privacy, since Microsoft specifically is permitted to
publish their name and address to world, sell lists to third parties, etc.
I wouldn't be happy if New SPF were the same way.
Third, has Microsoft promised to retain the royalty-free nature of the
license for the term of their patents? Since the existing license is
non-sublicenseable, there is nothing in the existing license that prevents
Microsoft from switching to a rent-seeking license for subsequent deployers
after waiting until New SPF has achieved sufficient adoption that any future
user of e-mail must, of practical necessity, implement New SPF. Honestly, I
am a little uncomfortable with the idea of Microsoft achieving the position
of e-mail gatekeeper due to the possibly that in the future users must
license New SPF in order to exchange e-mail with a large fraction of the
Internet.
However, to be frank, I think New SPF will not achieve the wide scale
deployment that it needs for success if everyone who chooses to implement
New SPF or deploy New SPF has to sign even the most generous of patent
licenses. I am certain that one of the reasons that the current version of
SPF has been adopted by vastly larger number of domains than Microsoft
Caller ID for E-Mail is that even what would appear to be the relatively
small hurdle of signing a royalty free license is a deterrent to deployment.
In many organizations the e-mail administrator has a great deal of latitude
when it comes to implementing technical solutions, but has little power to
sign legal contracts.
Why is Microsoft insisting on a patent license for Caller ID? They are
offering a royalty free license, so it obviously isn't immediate financial
concerns that is driving their desire to require a patent license. Are they
just trying to protect themselves from a third-party patenting a portion of
Caller ID? Without understanding their rationale for requiring a license,
it is difficult to offer suggestions that they would be likely to accept.
I'd like to avoid anything remotely like what happened with the UNISYS GIF
patents.
Since they don't appear to be interested in claiming rents for their Caller
ID patent or patents, my recommendation would be that we ask Microsoft to
dedicate their Caller ID for E-Mail patent or patents, much like Bell Labs
dedicated their patent on the setuid bit. This would offer Microsoft some
protection while eliminating the necessity of obtaining a license from
Microsoft for those who choose to implement or deploy New SPF.