RE: consensus call on pra/mailfrom deployment and versioning/scope

["Harry Katz" <hkatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On September 10, 2004 1:03 PM, John Glube [mailto:jbglube@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
wrote:

> Harry,
> 
> I appreciate the point that:
> 
> >Microsoft's IPR disclosure clearly states that our IPR 
> claims relate to 
> >the maird-core and marid-pra specs used in combination.  We are not 
> >aware of any IPR claims on marid-core used in combination with some 
> >other specification.
> 
> I acknowledge that:
> 
> >... Administrators or any other end users of licensed Sender ID 
> >implementations do not require a license from Microsoft.  This is 
> >clearly stated in section 2.2 of the Sender ID license.
> 
> Perhaps I did not make my point clearly in my earlier note. 

Perhaps I misunderstood.  At any rate, thank you for taking the time to
clarify.

> So, let me give a specific example.
> 
> Let's say I am a software developer. 
> 
> A protocol is adopted which allows MTA's to do mailfrom 
> and/or pra checks. The specification includes 
> draft-marid-core (modified to include reference to mailfrom 
> checks as well as pra checks), draft-marid-pra and 
> draft-marid-mailfrom.
> 
> (This is somewhat speculative on my part, but we need a set 
> of facts for the sake of discussion.)

This is my understanding of the co-chairs proposal too.

> Microsoft has an IPR claim on using draft-marid-pra in 
> combination with draft-marid-core.
> 
> (I make this statement based on Microsoft's existing
> claims.)

Correct.

> I want to write a program which allows an MTA to run mailfrom 
> and/or pra checks using these specifications and then 
> distribute this program to end users.
> 
> The program will be a plug in, or filter which is designed to 
> work with any of the existing MTA's on the market.
> 
> The draft patent license contains the following:
> 
> Microsoft ... hereby grant You a perpetual ...worldwide 
> license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to use ...
> object code versions of Licensed Implementations only as 
> incorporated into Licensed Products and solely for the 
> purpose of conforming with the Sender ID Specification.
> 
> (See section 2.1 of the draft Patent License.)
> 
> I appreciate that as long as I include the requisite notice:
> 
> You also have ... a ... license to distribute or otherwise 
> disclose source code copies of such Licensed Implementation ...
> 
> (See section 2.2 of the draft Patent License.)
> 
> The question is whether I can incorporate mailfrom checks in 
> my program, so that an end user can do both mailfrom and/or 
> pra checks using my software program?

Yes, you can.  We are not aware of any Microsoft IPR claim related to
spoof checking of MAIL FROM.  Therefore, the Sender ID license is
irrelevent for checking MAIL FROM.  

> My concern is with the last restriction in the draft patent 
> license which reads:
> 
> ... "and solely for the purpose of conforming with the Sender 
> ID Specification." 
> 
> I take this to mean "object code versions of Licensed 
> Implementations only as incorporated into Licensed Products" 
> can only be used to "conform with the Sender ID Specification."
> 
> (The Sender ID Specification being defined as the combination 
> of draft-marid-pra with draft-marid-core.)
> 
> On this point, please also note the following Q & A from 
> Microsoft's FAQ:
> 
> Q8: What if I want to use the Sender ID technology in some 
> other context, still related to email but perhaps not related 
> to Sender ID? Will Microsoft sue me? 
> 
> A8: Microsoft is committed to working with companies in a 
> collaborative way to license our Intellectual Property (see 
> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/). If Microsoft is granted 
> patent rights that cover the Sender ID specification 
> (currently pending) it will make those rights available at no 
> cost for anyone to implement and use the Sender ID 
> specification. Microsoft will need to see what patent rights 
> are granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office to even 
> know for sure what rights it has to offer.
> Since it is impossible to contemplate every possible use of 
> it Sender ID patent rights we cannot make a commitment up 
> front to specific license terms. We invite anyone interested 
> in using Microsoft's IP to innovate and compete in the 
> marketplace to come talk to us. 
> 
> I want to use the Sender ID technology in a software program 
> which allows network administrators to run both mailfrom 
> and/or pra checks on incoming email to the network, or 
> outgoing email from the network she is administrating.
> 
> Can I do this under the license terms, or do I as per Q8 and 
> A8 need a separate license from Microsoft?

As I stated above, we are not aware of any Microsoft IPR claims on MAIL
FROM checking, so our license is not relevent.  So, to be as clear as I
can, if you're implementing spoof checks of both PRA and MAIL FROM under
the framework described in Core (and our patent application is granted)
then you would need a license for the PRA check but not the MAIL FROM
check.  If you are implementing spoof checking of MAIL FROM and _not_
PRA, we have no IPR claims, and no license to offer. 

> If I need a separate license then as I note in my earlier
> email:
> 
> As such, the restriction contained in the draft patent 
> Sender-ID license would preclude network administrators from 
> incorporating both mailfrom and pra checks without obtaining 
> separate permission from Microsoft.
> 
> To be totally clear, the concern should have read:
> 
> As such, the restriction contained in the draft patent 
> Sender-ID license would preclude network administrators from 
> incorporating both mailfrom and pra checks without the 
> distributor of any such Licensed Implementation obtaining 
> separate permission from Microsoft.
> 
> I trust this helps to clarify the issue raised in my earlier note.

Thanks.  Likewise, I hope I've answered your question.