----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Connor" <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] 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.
I have been unable to find the actual document which is MS's application,
to read the words they used, so if you can point me at it...... :-)
Certainly their disclosure to IETF says no such thing.
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.
I admire your faith in the humans involved, but would advise against not
seeing the obvious. If you were offered a car with a tank of fuel or an
exactly similar car with an empty tank - which would you take? MS will
(quite rightly imho) take everything they can get. It is up to us to guard
the "product" so that they only get what they are entitled to.
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."
Sure - secrecy is commercially expedient - but we should be pressing them
for some specific exclusions from their application (spf, sender-ID PRA
algorithm, etc) and they can keep secret the rest, as we won't know what it
is anyway :-)
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.
Heh - you got deep pockets? It'd be more than we could afford collectively,
just to get the defense assembled, let alone presented in court. Why is
there such a reluctance to get this right *before* it goes too far. We have
a fantastic opportunity here, and Meng was very brave to tackle the "lion in
it's den". We're in the den now, but we still have a good opportunity to
make sure the lion only eats his own food, and not ours as well. (or us as
well !! ).
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.
Sure - that's what lawyers do -- cya ;-) But bear in mind this is an
opinion expressed freely - not only we didn't pay, but it is expressed
voluntarily. That fact that some of the WG and others might think it
"highly unlikely" does not mean it shouldn't be defended against. Many
things are highly unlikely, but we all take insurance out against them :-)
Think of my suggections as an insurance policy - *not* an attack on MS, and
*not* a criticism of the thinking amongst the WG and others.
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492