Re: PRA - purported responsible address

--jpinkerton <johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com> wrote:

> I have just read the PRA, CORE, etc files which are referred to in MARID
> and the MS patent licence and I hope I am wrong, but here's my take on it.
... snip
> Now - please tell me I am wrong - but if M$ are applying for a patent
> licence over the CORE and PRA documents (or parts of them), it is going to
> be impossible to *not* include the PROTOCOL document - which is spf .
No, not in my understanding.  Remember, MS applied for the patent(s) for 
CallerID, not for SenderID, and only parts of CallerID at that.  They 
applied for their patents before MARID even got started, so the patents are 
not based on MARID documents -- they only overlap to the extent that the 
final documents contain parts similar to the original CallerID.
They may end up getting patents for various things, some of which are 
needed to implement SenderID, and some of which aren't.  It looks like the 
license only applies to inventions that are *both* covered by an MS patent 
*and* necessary to implement SenderID.
The reason it is left vague as to what is patented and what is licensed is 
because the pending applications are kept secret.  The "necessary claims" 
part of the license defines what rights you get, without revealing the 
exact nature of the patent itself... it seems to be saying "If MS wins the 
patent, you are welcome to use the part of that patent that overlaps with 
Sender ID."
In other words, they are not trying to steal SPF and patent it too.  That 
wouldn't work and even if USPTO granted it, it would be easy to challenge.

> Then I read this expert legal opinion on the ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
> mail-list :
>
> <quote>
> .....
> And herein lies one of the rubs - without knowing what the patent
> alleges to include, we can't possibly say with any certainty that if it
> doesn't work out, very few components need to be switched out to remove
> their IPR from play.  It's entirely possible that the pending patent
> includes everything, and a few extras besides.  Certainly if I were
> their lawyer, that's how I'd write it.  As such, it's entirely possible
> that one could find that one couldn't use *any* related components.
> Sure, as some have mentioned, there is prior art, MS created Caller
> I.D., not Sender I.D., etc. etc..   Are *you* going to fund and mount
> that legal battle?
>
>  From a legal viewpoint, it's always safest to assume that the claim
> includes nearly everything, if not everything.  Especially when one
> can't even see it.
>
> Anne
>
> Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
> President/CEO
> Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy
> Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ
> Committee Member, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> </quote>
>
> So - as far as I can see - M$ are actually trying to patent the whole
> thing - Caller-ID, Sender-ID, *and* SPF.  If they are not, why haven't we
> been told what they *are* trying to patent????

I think Anne is doing what lawyers do and being ultra-paranoid.  MS has 
said that their patent process started before starting to work on MARID, so 
my guess is that it's *highly unlikely* that they would take Meng's already 
semi-derivative work and the work of others and try to patent it.  I think 
Anne is saying that is *possible*, but I am willing to proceed on the 
assumption that MS is not trying to patent all of SenderID.  They are not 
getting money from the license, after all, just defending against rival 
claims.
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>