Subject: Re: [Asrg] not patents, was Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops

From: John R Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:01:14 -0500 (EST)

> I'm sorry I even brought it up, as it seems to have completely
> derailed the conversation.  I certainly didn't *mean* "WOULD apply,"
> just *might* apply.

Goodmail doesn't have any patents.  What are you talking about?

They have one pending application, but an application is a long way
from being an issued patent, particularly in view of the Bilski
decision.  And the application is about sender authorization, not
payments.

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Bart Schaefer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:36:20 -0800

On Nov 22,  3:01pm, John R Levine wrote:
} Subject: Re: [Asrg] not patents, was Email Postage (was Re: FeedBack loops
}
} > I'm sorry I even brought it up, as it seems to have completely
} > derailed the conversation.  I certainly didn't *mean* "WOULD apply,"
} > just *might* apply.
} 
} Goodmail doesn't have any patents.  What are you talking about?

What I was hoping to be talking about was an SMTP-based model for
postage transactions, hence "I'm sorry I even brought [patents] up."
In the context of patents I was merely pointing out that there are
other hurdles besides technical ones to deploying a working system.
I only referred to Goodmail because Gerald had done so.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:09:24 -0800

> Goodmail doesn't have any patents.  What are you talking about?

There are lots of patents in the space the group is discussing.  It's not much 
of a reach to imagine that one or another of them has been licensed by one or 
another of the companies in this space.

Focusing on a particular company distracts from just how much prior art there is 
and how difficult it can be to predict whether a particular patent will be 
viewed as infringing.

Those of us with some expert witness experience know how flexible the game can 
be.  And I'm pretty sure none of us is a patent attorney.

So we all probably ought to worry more about desired common functionality and 
less about infringement.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: David Wall <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:10:12 -0800

>
> So we all probably ought to worry more about desired common 
> functionality and less about infringement.
Indeed, unless the idea is taken from a specific company's 
implementation and they are not part of this discussion. 

The details of such a postage solution are very tricky to get right, and 
hope for wide adoption (cheap, easy, scalable and solves a real problem 
are key) should matter when it comes to email because it's already full 
of standards attempts to do similar things that don't work if not widely 
adopted (if the others aren't doing it, most likely you won't either), 
is already massively deployed, etc.

Of course, a parallel messaging world that works like email but uses 
different, but familiar, mechanisms from the ground up can also work, 
especially if it's superior in terms of authentication of sending 
parties, reliable messaging, ensures privacy, moving large payloads, 
allowing for greater semantics to express intent of the message, 
XML-based perhaps, allowing spammers to be identified and preferably 
booted, etc.  Then email can just be email and lose its luster over time 
as it is now because of spammers and phishers.  After all, email as it 
is is rather long in the tooth for a technology.  It could even bridge 
into email by allowing such messages to be delivered via email (via web 
sites?), though perhaps not allow email to be an originator back in.

Many companies (like my own) have come up with proprietary solutions 
that do many of these things, but a standard that has the support of 
open source providers, nice APIs, and can be incorporated by big ISPs 
and other software vendors could have a chance.  Of course, this is 
likely out of scope for this group and is a big undertaking to say the 
least.

David