Subject: RE: on the topic of IPR

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 06:52:15 -0700

> I was one of those people who openly speculated about 
> Microsoft usurping SPF.

From a PR standpoint I somehow doubt that Microsoft is going to
be known primarily for having created SenderID in ten years time.

There is a PR story here and it is a pretty good one, large
corporation teams up with the leader of a grass roots effort
to kill spam, IETF acts quickly to save the Internet.

Now that story is not a 100% complete version of events, but
it is something that the press can explain and can use to 
promote Sender-ID and get it deployed. And everyone comes out
a hero - including the media.

What is more everyone comes off as bigger heros than they do
if they take the go it alone route.

There is a lot to be said for co-opting an organization with
a billion dollar marketing and publicity budget.

Some of you will remember a project I worked on called the Web.
The Web did not win the network hypertext game because it was 
the best system or had the best clients. There were many 
competitors. At one point the Web team all went up the road 
to Neuchattel and saw a demo of Hyper-G and came away asking
what we could do to keep up.

The Web won because it had smarter marketechture. I didn't
spend two months selling the Web to the Clinton-Gore people
on a whim, we knew that the Whitehouse was going online and 
whoever set the Whitehouse spec would set the industry spec.

Tim's role in the Web was essentially the same as Meng's role
setting up the SPF group or Linus with Linux. Keeping a bunch
of techies together focused on a project is hard, much harder
in fact than the technical issues.

Sender-ID needs a powerful PR engine to draft behind. The IETF
does not have one, at least not yet. Part of the idea here is
to prove that the IETF is not as irrelevant and hopeless as
its critics believe.

To obtain a WS-Security license all you have to do is to fill
in a Web form. Sure I do not like to have to do this just to 
visit the Washington Post or New York Times, but I am prepared
to put up with a minor piece of inconvenience. 

I want Microsoft to be placed squarely in the firing line of 
all and any patent trolls that come after us. I have never
had any difficulty with a piece of declared IPR, its the 
undeclared IPR owned by a law firm we should be worrying about.

---

From: Markus Stumpf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:51:29 +0200

> be known primarily for having created SenderID in ten years time.

Hmmm ... from my memory (backuped by the list archives and news articles
in the Internet) Microsoft created Caller-Id.
Sender-Id is the work of the IETF MARID group and not Microsoft.

It is very funny ro read even in this list and in news articles that
Microsoft created Sender-Id, which is simply wrong. Also in the patent
claims Microsoft talks about Sender-Id as their invention.
Sender-Id is *at best* a derivate work which borrows some ideas of
Caller-Id.

	\Maex

-- 
SpaceNet AG            | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development |       D-80807 Muenchen    | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
 proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"

---

From: kent crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:54:55 -0700

> to kill spam, IETF acts quickly to save the Internet.

There are numerous possible PR stories here.  Another example might be
"IETF grants major competitive advantage to Large Corporation".  Or
perhaps "IETF makes stand against open source software".  Stories 
like these are just as likely -- we've already seen some, in fact.

> promote Sender-ID and get it deployed.

I'm not sure how much effect the press will actually have on the
deployment. 

> if they take the go it alone route.

Being aclaimed a hero in the press doesn't motivate me, to tell you the
truth.  If Sender-ID were compelling technology that would clearly
work, it might be worth it.  But it's not at all clear that it will
actually accomplish what it claims. 

> a billion dollar marketing and publicity budget.

From another point of view: There is something to be said for co-opting
a well-known standards organization to get its name behind your trivial
technology.

[...]

> to prove that the IETF is not as irrelevant and hopeless as

I can't help but think that the IETF racing to approve a standard
because of its PR value is actually more damaging.

Speaking just for myself, of course...

-- 
Kent Crispin 
[email-masked]    p: +1 310 823 9358  f: +1 310 823 8649
[email-masked] SIP: [email-masked]

---

From: Kevin Peuhkurinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:29:33 -0400

>whoever set the Whitehouse spec would set the industry spec.
It's certainly true that superior marketing often allows inferior 
technology to triumph over rivals.  I can think of one company that has 
proven that time and time again.    However, I don't see how that really 
applies to this situation, unless you believe that if MARID adopts 
ClassicSPF over Sender-ID that Microsoft would ignore the IETF and push 
Sender-ID anyway, which would be a real shame.   Has MS given any 
inclination that they will respect MARID regardless of what it produces?

>...
Again with the fear.   If we cower from adopting a great technology 
based solely on fear of some future threat, then the IP terrorists have 
already won.

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:01:26 -0400

> be known primarily for having created SenderID in ten years time.

As Markus Stumpf pointed out, Microsoft created Caller-ID, while 
Sender-ID is the product of this group. Also, Caller-ID itself is based 
on the SPF which is based on RMX and DMP plus discussions in the ASRG, 
which in turn are based on the ideas of Paul Vixie, and others. But I am 
digressing.

> if they take the go it alone route.

In the context of what we are trying to determine, this is important as 
far as it can help in deployment. PR by itself might not matter, but if 
it leads to faster deployment, then it is a large plus. If large ISPs 
commit to deployment, thats another plus also.

> to put up with a minor piece of inconvenience. 

There is a crucial difference here. WS-Security, and many other 
standards out there are not nearly as prevalent and largely used as 
email standards are. The only things that have similar market effects is 
the Eolas patent and the TCP/IP security IPR issues with Cisco.

The problem is that the amount of people needed to be convinced, and the 
amount of people bothered by this minor inconvenience, as well as the 
possible problems integrating this into open source MTAs which run 
majority of the Internet's email, is a by far much larger than most 
similar occurances to date.

The question we should be asking is whether this inconvenience big 
enough to cause problems with deployment. As RFC 3669 puts it: "... 
terms can make a technology unusable even if it is perfect otherwise"

> undeclared IPR owned by a law firm we should be worrying about.

I really don't understand this logic nor do I understand the logic of 
why this license is being insisted on. Eolas went after Microsoft not 
because of a patent that Microsoft had, but rather because they made a 
web browser. Simply developing Exchange and Hotmail, in lieu of any 
patents will make Microsoft a large and juicy target for IPR. Therefore, 
what has placed Microsoft in the firing line is their involvement in 
email, not their patents. Even if they would not have filed a patent 
application, some troll patenting RMX or SPF, would have a field day anyway.

Additionally, IMHO the reciprocal license will not help either, since a 
lot of the patent trolls maybe law firms or not even in the email 
business (for example, Eolas does not make web browsers). The reciprocal 
license does not protect Microsoft from claims of some law firm or shell 
company that comes and sues for patent infringement. Therefore, saying 
that the reason for requiring the license is to protect from patent 
trolls, as Harry said during the meeting in San Diego, is illogical. It 
would be helpful if Microsoft can elaborate as to why they are insisting 
on such license.

Therefore, I don't understand why Microsoft is insisting on such 
license. Considering that it may seriously hinder deployment as several 
people have testified, it would make more sense that a license without a 
requirement to sign an agreement is issued. If the patent trolls will 
come, the license will not stop them anyway but the patent might. This 
way Microsoft can have its cake and eat it to.

Yakov

---

From: "David H. Lynch Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:39:24 -0700

> license. Considering that it may seriously hinder deployment as 
> several people have testified, it would make more sense that a license 
> without a requirement to sign an agreement is issued. If the patent 
> trolls will come, the license will not stop them anyway but the patent 
> might. This way Microsoft can have its cake and eat it to.
>
> Yakov
>
>
I do not understand the requirement to sign the license either. Their 
failure to accept a license bound to the standard or required as part of 
the source of an implimentation suguests that they do nto beleive their 
own EULA under which all of there software is distributed are binding or 
enforceable. Regardless, a license include as part of the standard or 
required in the text of any source would likely provide very nearly as 
strong a legal defense against patent counter claims though it still 
might not be acceptable to FOSS it would atleast be much closer.