Subject: RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:58:07 -0700

> Nicely put. However, it also does not mean that the copy is 
> unencumbered
> either, as this is not strictly stated. This is (among other things)
> wiggle room.

If there is ambiguity in a contract the interpretation goes against
the party who wrote it. That is why it was essential for Microsoft 
to draft this, they don't get the benefit of any wiggle room.

As a practical matter the empirical definition of law is what a 
court rules. Now some complete fools get appointed to the bench
and it is impossible to be sure that there will not be a ridiculous
decision.

But consider, what is the likelihood of an adverse decision that 
involves damages or an injunction prohibiting distribution against
any party that is not making a claim without granting reciprocal 
rights?

If an action was taken against any party they can bring themselves
into compliance at any time. Patent disputes cost millions and there
is always a risk that the court proceedings would end with the
patent being declared invalid. Microsoft would not be in a position 
to claim loss of revenue.

As a matter of longstanding IETF precedent a license with a reciprocal
rights clause is the norm. This has never been objected to in the past.
The idea of a reciprocal grant does not seem to me to be antithetical
to the aims of the GPL, quite the opposite.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:39:43 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker,
> Phillip
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 7:58 PM
> To: 'Chip Mefford'; 'IETF MARID List'
> Subject: RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License
>
>
>

Uh, is there a law that I am unaware of, especially one that applies to all countries?

> and it is impossible to be sure that there will not be a ridiculous

Which is why the contracts need to be concise.  Perhaps Microsoft needs more lawyers so they can
make their license concise.  But make no mistake, it is NOT sufficiently concise (even if its
loosest interpretation was acceptable).

> any party that is not making a claim without granting reciprocal

Are you citing a precedent?  If so, please state.  If not are you a lawyer?  If neither, what weight
does your argument hold?

> to claim loss of revenue.

So if only MS stands to lose, why don't they clarify the license?

> to the aims of the GPL, quite the opposite.

Granted.

But the license is not concise, and that is the root of the problem.