Subject: Re: on the topic of IPR

From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 04:46:03 -0700

> 3. If MS IPR proves to be not worth the pain caused, we (ietf, marid, 
> or individuals) all have alternatives to choose from that are not that 
> unsavory. In my mind, the advantage of including MS as a partner is 
> not that their IPR is that much better... But, if this doesn't work 
> out, very few components need to be switched out to remove their IPR 
> from play.
>
 >...
 >
> MS employees also chose to not even disclose WHAT THE PENDING PATENT 
> IS FOR. The fact that they kept the "what is or is not pending a 
> patent" a guarded secret shows that their interests come first, and 
> makes me think that they are not hanging out on this group for an 
> altruistic purpose.

And herein lies one of the rubs - without knowing what the patent 
alleges to include, we can't possibly say with any certainty that if it 
doesn't work out, very few components need to be switched out to remove 
their IPR from play.  It's entirely possible that the pending patent 
includes everything, and a few extras besides.  Certainly if I were 
their lawyer, that's how I'd write it.  As such, it's entirely possible 
that one could find that one couldn't use *any* related components.   
Sure, as some have mentioned, there is prior art, MS created Caller 
I.D., not Sender I.D., etc. etc..   Are *you* going to fund and mount 
that legal battle?

 From a legal viewpoint, it's always safest to assume that the claim 
includes nearly everything, if not everything.  Especially when one 
can't even see it.

Anne

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy
Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ
Committee Member, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop