At 06:56 AM 8/25/2004 +0100, Graham Murray wrote:
"Ryan Malayter" <rmalayter(_at_)bai(_dot_)org> writes:
But IP "theft and abuse"? I don't remember much in the way of that.
A case in point, disk compression for DOS. Microsoft used a
compression system and was sued by the company they 'stole' it
from.
Maybe I agree with your characterization of that case.
My opinion is to avoid trying to define who stole what from whom (we are not
legal judges, concensus is difficult between competitors you need to adopt
SPF...attacking companies won't win you friends in market place), and instead
focus on paradigm shifts way to make the supercede the whole issue.
Stating the obvious, SPF controls it's own destiny if it can accelerate
adoption on it's standards in way that actually starts deleting a lot of
forgery for a large percentage of the internet, so I think we only need to
figure out how to improve the standard to make that happen.
Whether the IETF endorses the Microsoft license (that is the issue right?),
then even becomes more irrelevant.
See my previous post.