-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
| I am having trouble following the discussion. I am no lawyer, and I
see that
| we have at least one good lawyer in our midst, and probably access to
| several more. Can I get a clear-cut answer as to whether or not
Microsoft's
| pending patent will cover SPF Classic?
|
| I know that on the MARID list, Microsoft representatives repeatedly denied
| that the patent will cover SPF or the sender ID core. Were they lying?
Until there is firm opinion from a competent patent attorney that SPF is
not covered I am assuming that it is. There are reasons for that beyond
M$'s basic behavior... someone besides Harry from M$ made a comment
basically saying that since SPF had not officially been on the table
they had not been required to make any IPR disclosures with respect to SPF.
- --
Chuck Mead <csm(_at_)redhat(_dot_)com>
Instructor II (and resident Postfix bigot), GLS
Disclaimer: "It's Thursday and my name is Locutus of B0rk!"
Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBU1OUZfy0juH51WsRAtFbAJ998ZSTsjV0tfvrF+kPV8wdiiUMBACfQNYB
jkB9f9NLcdlXtwjSeD+nc/Q=
=oCzX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----