[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

DEPLOY: IPR [was Re: TECH: use fetchmail algorithm to select header address to verify]


[I changed the tag and subject to match the topic of discussion]

On Sep 7, 2004, at 8:43 PM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:


Dave Crocker wrote: 
My own guidance about whether to to treat an IPR claim seriously --
particularly when it includes legal filings -- is to decide whether
the claimant has the means and the resolve to pursue them.

There is definitely means here, but I am not sure about the resolve. Somehow I don't think they will make fools out of themselves, especially considering that the FAT patent is being challenged.

The costs of being in IPR litigation are awesome, no matter how
frivolous one might believe the claims to be.

Considering what happened to the Eolas and FAT patents, challenging a patent is now an option as well and is much cheaper.

In any case, does this mean that anyone claiming IPR rights can stop the standards process? That's not the reading I get from the cases of IDN and IPSec.

My reading of the IPR situation is that the MS patent is defensive - it ensures that they (and we) can use the technology. Their license is positioned for maximum defensive value. I believe they (and we) would have been better off sacrificing some of the legal defense value for sub-licensing and more open source compatibility, but they obviously disagree. In fairness, I'll point out that they have effectively volunteered to pay for any patent defense that is necessary, and perhaps can not be blamed too much for a zealous approach to preventing litigation expense.

I suggest ignoring the patent. It's not in their interests to litigate this kind of defensive (read: bogus) patent if they can possibly help it - avoiding patent litigation is the entire point of defensive patents. We'll only see litigation if someone decides to file a competing patent claim and prevent MS (and the rest of us) from using Sender ID. In this scenario a patent holder with deep pockets is a desirable.

The idea that any email authentication algorithm that is not currently encumbered will remain so in the face of something as potent as spam prevention strikes me as a bit naive. Others have posted on the state of the USPTO office an software patents, so I won't repeat that here. A patent holder focused on milking the patent, rather than protecting large and profitable businesses, would produce far worse licensing terms. A patent holder acting on behalf of the open source community would presumably produce a more open source friendly license. But no patent claim is a temporary situation. We need to be realistic about this, and I suspect MS's position in many reflects painful experience with failing to patent things that the rest of us would call either obvious or long standing prior art. My experience has certainly been that it if it is useful, you need to patent it if you expect to continue to use it.

Margaret.