Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised

Graham Murray wrote:

> "Seth Goodman" <sethg(_at_)GoodmanAssociates(_dot_)com> writes:
>
> > In case it has escaped your attention, they have included SPF
> > classic in their patent application, which they did not invent.
> > That is about as bad faith a maneuver as I can imagine.
> What made it even worse is that they compounded this by making false
> statements to the MARID WG. Before the patent application was
> published their representative on MARID was specifically asked if the
> potential IPR (ie the patent application) covered SPF or other
> techniques. The response was a definite negative, that the potential
> IPR only covers the two MARID drafts in combination. As we now see,
> the patent application covers a lot more than this.
While there are now folks saying perhaps SPF "Classic" is not covered by the 
IPR claims, after all, I have yet to see a MS lawyer, or MS representitive, 
come forward and say, "No, no! Relax, all y'all read it wrong! We did not 
steal SPF Classic!" How long are we to stay in denial? I would not be 
surprised if MARID disbanded for sheer embarrassment. We caught MS with 
their pants down; who can be mooned like that, and still preach "good faith" 
on the part of MS?
- Mark

       System Administrator Asarian-host.org

---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx