The fear I have is that M$ will pursue this regardless of what we or MARID
say or do. Can anyone think of a specific case where M$ dropped the pursuit
of a patent? Once the patent is granted - which is not a fore-gone
conclusion, but is much more likely than not, given the weight of M$'s legal
team and the methodolgy of the US patent office - the patent-holder will be
calling the shots, and the internet community will have to comply with what
M$ decrees, or look elsewhere for a solution that does something akin to
sender-ID.
The vagueness of the specification to be patented is also a major concern.
If there is any possibility that any of the code, etc for SPF is included in
any part of the documents they have mentioned, then SPF is going to belong
to M$ as well. I leave it for others to decide whether the two documents
include SPFclassic work or not.
I fear that the WG have walked into the trap - I just hope that SPFclassic
is not touched by this, but at the moment it is unclear and I don't have the
cash to pay for legal clarification. Does that mean I abandon projects to
include SPFclassic? Well I'm hoping there will be some clarification on this
list or the WG list, but I'm not holding my breath. M$ business managers
will be milking the situation for everything they can, and that might mean
they will include the SPF work. As part of their business plan they
probably will specifically *not* clarify the situation to MARID. The M$
contributors on the MARID list will probably be kept in the dark by M$
management so that they can genuinely say they don't know. The
clarification will only be made to the patent office at the last possible
moment - to protect the commercial interests.
Am I cynical - not especially, but I have worked for big organisations and
understand their methods. I am now a small, self-employed operator and can
see how the road ahead lies from a business point of view - that's what I'm
good at after some 35 years in business around the world.
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492
----- Original Message -----
From: <terry(_at_)ashtonwoodshomes(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:47 AM
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Patent license
e.g. The compression code microsoft stole from Stac Electronics (but Stac
went bankrupt during the
ensuing legal battle).
(http://www.base.com/software-patents/articles/stac.html)
And if you really want to know the truth, MS didn't steal the GUI from
Apple. They stole it from
XEROX. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC)
Fear of this vague license is not without merit.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Ryan
Malayter
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 6:07 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Patent license
[Nico Kadel-Garcia]
Microsoft
is historically *not* clear about what they own, and they
have a long and
well-established history of intellectual property theft and abuse.
I don't know. Microsoft is an IP company. They are generally
very clear
as to what they own, and they make damn sure everyone knows it with
pages of legalese in their licenses.
Microsoft also, in my mind, does not have a "well-established
history of
intellectual property theft and abuse". They have a well-established
history of using their market dominance and money to push other
companies into some uncomfortable business deals, what has been called
abuse of monopoly power (and rightly so IMHO).
But IP "theft and abuse"? I don't remember much in the way of that.
I can only presume you're referring to the whole Windows vs. Macintosh
"look and feel" fiasco a decade ago. Microsoft won that suit, as I
recall, even though Apple spent millions on lawyers. I recall it was
Apple abusing the system, making outrageous claims about their IP
covering such obvious notions as a pointer and a menu that was hidden
until you clicked on it. I was a Mac addict at the time, and even so I
was embarrassed by Apple's behavior. Instead of building better
software, they tried to take the easy route.
Do you have any examples of IP theft and abuse by Microsoft you'd like
to share? Maybe I'm missing something.
And please don't try to use Eolas as an example. The Eolas patent is
probably invalid due to prior art, as most recent news has
shown. Heck,
Mozilla and other open source browsers probably violate the Eolas
patents as well as IE; Microsoft is the target simply because
they have
the most money.
Regards,
Ryan
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in
Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily
deactivate your subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta
features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com