From: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>
Sent: September 24, 2004 8:47 PM
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.
I *really* believe that Harry and the other guy had no
idea, and believe it, and said what they did in good faith.
In fact, I have to believe that right now Harry and his
colleague are probably really unhappy.
The statements in issue were made in response to questions
I raised on the MARID list. After the press statement was
made on September 20, 2004 by an MS spokesperson which
raised the possibility of the MS patent (s) applying to
SPF, I had a telephone conversation with a knowledgeable
person.
Without going into the details of this telephone call or
with whom I spoke, I will state for the record to the best
of my understanding:
* Harry Katz and Jim Lyons at all times acted in good faith.
* Harry Katz, who made the representations concerning the
application of the MS patents in response to my questions,
did so honestly and in good faith, believing they were true.
* Harry Katz was not the press spokesperson who sent the
email to Jim Wagner on September 20, 2004.
I can't speak to their present state of mind, but I would
concur in Anne's assessment that both Harry and Jim are
likely embarrassed with what has transpired.
John
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Calls For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17/09/2004