Subject: DEPLOY: Microsoft's Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination

From: "Harry Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:01:28 -0700

The following IPR disclosure statement was sent to [email-masked]
earlier today.

Please contact [email-masked] with any questions you may have.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
This document is an IETF Patent Disclosure and Licensing Declaration 
   Template and is submitted to inform the IETF of a) patent information
   regarding the IETF document or contribution listed in Section IV, and
   b) a Patent Holder's intention with respect to the licensing of its 
   necessary patent claims. No actual license is implied by submission 
   of this template. Please complete and submit a separate template for 
   each IETF document or contribution to which the disclosed patent 
   information relates. 

   I. Patent Holder/Applicant ("Patent Holder") 
    
   Legal Name:  Microsoft Corporation
    
   II. Patent Holder's Contact for License Application 
    
   Name:  Microsoft Standards Inquiries
    
   Title: 
    
   Department:  
    
   Address:  One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052

   Telephone:  
    
   Fax:  
    
   Email:  [email-masked] 
    
   III. Contact Information for the IETF Participant Whose Personal 
   Belief Triggered the Disclosure in this Template (Optional) 
    
   Name:  Harry Katz
    
   Title: 
    
   Department:  
    
   Address:  

   Telephone:  
    
   Fax:  
    
   Email:  
    
   IV. IETF Document or Contribution to Which Patent Disclosure Relates

   Title:  1) Sender ID: Authenticating E-mail 
             2) Purported Responsible Address in E-mail Messages

   RFC Number or I-D Tag:    1) draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt 
                                          2) draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt

   Other Designations:  

   V. Disclosure of Patent Information (i.e., patents or patent 
   applications required to be disclosed by Section 6 of RFC 3668) 
    
   A. For granted patents or published pending patent applications, 
   please provide the following information: 
    
   Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File 
   number(s): 

   Date(s) granted or applied for (YYYY-MM-DD):  
    
   Country(ies): 

   B. Does your disclosure relate to an unpublished pending patent 
   application? 
    
   Select one:  Yes  ___X___  No ______ 
    
   C. If an Internet-Draft or RFC includes multiple parts and it is not 
   reasonably apparent which part of such Internet-Draft or RFC is 
   alleged to be covered by the patent information disclosed in Section
   V(A) or V(B), it is helpful if the discloser identifies here the 
   sections of the Internet-Draft or RFC that are alleged to be so 
   covered.  
    
    Both Sender ID: Authenticating E-mail <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt>
and Purported Responsible Address in E-mail Messages
<draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in combination. 
    
   VI. Licensing Declaration  
    
   The Patent Holder states that its position with respect to licensing 
   any patent claims contained in the patent(s) or patent application(s)
   disclosed above that would necessarily be infringed by implementation
   of the technology required by the relevant IETF specification 
   ("Necessary Patent Claims"), for the purpose of implementing such 
   specification, is as follows (select one licensing declaration option
   only): 
    
   a) ___   No License Required for Implementers 
              Check here if commitment to forgo a license is limited 
              solely to standards-track RFCs ___ 
    
   b) _X__   Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to 
            All Implementers  **
              Check here if this commitment to license is limited solely
              to standards-track RFCs ___ 

   c) ___   Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All  
            Implementers with Possible Royalty/Fee 
              Check here if this commitment to license is limited solely
              to standards-track RFCs ___ 
    
   d) ___   Licensing Declaration to be Provided Later (implies a  
            willingness to commit to the provisions of a), b), or c) 
            above; otherwise, the next option - "Unwilling to Commit to
            the Provisions of a), b), or c) Above" - must be selected) 
    
   e) ___   Unwilling to Commit to the Provisions of a), b), or c) 
            Above 
    
   NOTE: The individual submitting this template represents and warrants
   that he or she is authorized by the Patent Holder to agree to the 
   above-selected licensing declaration. 
    
   VII. Contact Information of Submitter of this Form (if different from
   IETF Participant in Section III above) 
    
   Name: Microsoft Standards Inquiries
    
   Title: 
    
   Department: 
    
   Address: One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052

   Telephone: 
    
   Fax: 
    
   Email: [email-masked]           
    
   VIII. Other Notes:  ** A license to implement these specifications
will be made available at http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/standards on
or before September 15, 2004.

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:31:10 -0700 (PDT)

This implies that patent rights may exist only if the two documents are used
in combination. Would you comment on if the same IPR disclosure would still
be valid if any of the documents (i.e. ietf-marid-core and ietf-marid-pra)
are used and considered by this or any other IETF WG separately?

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:10:31 +0200

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 07:01:28PM -0700,
 Harry Katz <[email-masked]> wrote 

> The following IPR disclosure statement was sent to [email-masked]
...
>    applications required to be disclosed by Section 6 of RFC 3668) 
...
>    Select one:  Yes  ___X___  No ______ 

Does the above mean that it is not possible to know anything about the
patent itself? It is hard to take a decision about something you
cannot read.

---

From: Roy Arends <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:36:06 +0200 (CEST)

> The following IPR disclosure statement was sent to [email-masked]

What I'm concerned about is that licensing of technology developed and
published through the IETF sets a precedent. We'll be drifting from the
mudpool to the quicksand.

Roy Arends

---

From: "Michel Bouissou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:42:49 +0200 (CEST)

> or before September 15, 2004.

Then the compatibility of this license with implementation of SenderID in
Free Software cannot be determined before this license is actually
published.

Which makes it a show-stopper, as IETF cannot reasonably define as a
standard any protocol for which licensing terms are currently unknown.

So IMHO any IETF decision regarding SenderID has to be postponed as long
as the license is unknown.

-- 
Michel Bouissou <[email-masked]> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:11:54 +0200

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:42:49AM +0200,
 Michel Bouissou <[email-masked]> wrote 

> Free Software cannot be determined before this license is actually

The licence has been published on this Working Group mailing list. See
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03496.html. There is a
FAQ s well http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03497.html

Three weeks (until September 15) is just the time it takes to update a
Web page on an IIS Web server.

---

From: "Michel Bouissou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:44:36 +0200 (CEST)

Stephane Bortzmeyer a écrit :
>> Then the compatibility of this license with implementation of SenderID
>> in Free Software cannot be determined before this license is actually
>> published.
>
> The licence has been published on this Working Group mailing list.

Yes, I've just seen it had been attached to a following mail from Harry
Katz. The first email from Harry looked like the license wouldn't be
available before Sept, 15, thus my reply at this stage.

I note that this license remains "non-transferable and
non-sublicenseable", and that, to benefit from this license, one still
needs to return a written, signed copy to Microsoft.

In understand that the distribution rights (in binary or source form) are
only granted by this license, and thus, the issue remains of
redistribution rights for makers of Linux or *BSD distributions, who
simply couldn't afford to have to sign and return licenses, and track
their status, for every software package in the thousands of software
packages that modern Free Software distribution contains. So this still is
a problem.

Even though the license states that the licensee can redistribute
"indirectly" the Sender-ID code, it doesn't give any clue about the right
(or lack thereof) for the distributors themselves.

I'm also wondering about the "FAQ" : A FAQ by itself has no legal weight.
If a FAQ is needed, it tends to show that some points in the license may
be unclear. I would much prefer if all possibly unclear points were stated
in the license itself, as it would both make them clear, and have legal
value, rather than in a separate FAQ.

Yet, I'm concerned with the compatibility of this license with a GPL'd
MTA, as a first read makes me think they remain incompatible, but IANAL...

Could Microsoft give their written statement regarding the compatibility
between their Sender-ID license and a GPL'd MTA ? (please do not reply
that the GPL is just "yet another license" and that compatibility with
every license cannot be examined...)

> Web page on an IIS Web server.

ROTFLMAOWPIMP

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:25:19 -0700

If I'm understanding you, there is no new precedent. 
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html shows many preexisting IPR claims on a 
variety of IETF drafts and RFCs.

eric

--On Tuesday, August 24, 2004 09:36:06 +0200 Roy Arends <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

|
| On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Harry Katz wrote:
|
| > The following IPR disclosure statement was sent to
| > [email-masked] earlier today.
|
| What I'm concerned about is that licensing of technology developed
| and published through the IETF sets a precedent. We'll be drifting
| from the mudpool to the quicksand.
|
| Roy Arends
|
|