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

[<terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Margaret Olson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 6:13 AM
> To: Yakov Shafranovich
> Cc: Dave Crocker; Roy Badami; ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx
> Subject: 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.

Then why have such a restrictive license, indeed one that forces your competitors to inform you of
what they are working on?

> 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.

There is no disagreement.  You believe their patent is purely defensive.  Its clearly not *just*
defensive else why that discriminatory and/or restrictive license???

> In fairness, I'll point out that they have effectively
> volunteered to pay for any patent defense that is necessary, and

Of course, and what they get out of it is control from their competing MTA products: preventing the
competing MTA products from altering/enhancing/improving the MARID (thereby preventing them from
getting an edge with a better product).  Someone please correct me if I am wrong.  (Please let me be
wrong)

> 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.

Sure, OK.  But that still does NOT require a discriminatory and/or restrictive license!!!

Terry

>
> Margaret.
>