Subject: on the topic of IPR

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 06:48:11 -0400

It is one of the jobs of co-chairs to facilitate discussion of working 
group topics.  Not that the issue of IPR is being debated lightly, 
however we would like to raise a few discussion points that may have 
been overlooked or given light treatment.

-  Many a message have been dedicated toward discussing the potential 
abuse Microsoft may undertake while armed with a patent.  However, 
there has been little discussion regarding Microsoft's willingness and 
ability (via deep pockets) to fend off counter patent claims.  Should 
Sender ID go forward with the acceptance of Microsoft's IPR, it leaves 
little doubt that another entity claiming rights to such technology 
will have to go through Microsoft to find remedy.  However, if MARID 
were to produce another standard such as Classic SPF or even CSV, who 
will defend a legal claim against it?

-  Some of the participants have speculated openly that Microsoft's IPR 
claims might also cover the SPF syntax even though Microsoft has not 
specifically attributed their claim to draft-ietf-marid-protocol.  
Given that Microsoft's patent application and original IPR claim 
covered a Caller ID document which used XML and not SPF, is this a 
reasonable assumption?  It should be noted that it was the MARID 
working group that persuaded Microsoft to use the SPF syntax.  
Microsoft's first choice was XML.

-  If it is reasonable to assume that Microsoft's patent application 
and claimed IPR can and/or do reach beyond draft-ietf-marid-core and 
draft-ietf-marid-pra, is it not the best course of action to take 
Microsoft's offer of a royalty-free, nondiscriminatory and reasonable 
license given that a rejection of Sender ID as a standard has no weight 
on the standing of their claim.  In other words, if it is believed that 
their claim could cover other work product of MARID, then would not the 
best course of action be to secure the best-possible license?

-  On the issue of deployment, there have been many messages regarding 
the adoption of Sender ID (as a note, the chair's instructions 
specifically called for opinion about personal deployment and not 
speculation as to the actions of others).  While many believe that 
Sender ID's encumbrances will slow adoption because it is not as 
friendly as desired toward open source, it has been noted that Qmail 
also has an equally or more unfriendly license toward open source yet 
is one of the most popularly used MTAs.

-andy

---

From: Mark <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:37:33 GMT

Andrew Newton wrote:

> -  Some of the participants have speculated openly that Microsoft's
> IPR claims might also cover the SPF syntax even though Microsoft has
> not specifically attributed their claim to draft-ietf-marid-protocol.

I was one of those people who openly speculated about Microsoft usurping
SPF. Only yesterday, Stephane Bortzmeyer said:

"You can say that every SPF implementation (there are many, see
http://spf.pobox.com/downloads.html) is an implementation of
Sender-ID's -protocol."

(I am not exactly sure how serious Stephane was, so I leave that in the
middle). But I had just voiced, the other day, precisely this worry: that,
ere long, Microsoft, integrating SPF checks with Sender ID, might come to
look upon SPF (not perhaps its syntax, but its use in object-code), as part
of Sender ID.

Given statements like the above, I cannot say my concerns are alleviated.

> reasonable assumption?

How realistic is this? IANAL, either. Which is why I would love to hear a
lawyer say here, that such "usurpation" cannot possibly occur within the
current license.

This is an area, btw, where I will gladly stand corrected. ;)

- Mark

        System Administrator Asarian-host.org

---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx

---

From: Kevin Peuhkurinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:01:18 -0400

> will defend a legal claim against it?
This is fear-mongering, I'm afraid to say.   It makes no sense to say 
"here we have some verifiably homegrown IP with no encumberances and 
here we have some encumbered IP.   Let's use the encumbered IP rather 
than the unencumbered IP because otherwise we might get sued by parties 
unknown".  In any case, the EFF and PubPat amongst others have come into 
being just for the purpose of defending the public at large against 
these types of attacks.

> license given that a rejection of Sender ID as a standard has no 
> weight on the standing of their claim.  In other words, if it is 
> believed that their claim could cover other work product of MARID, 
> then would not the best course of action be to secure the 
> best-possible license?
>
Perhaps, but you are going to have a lot of trouble convincing people 
that this is the best possible license that Microsoft could offer.   It 
may be acceptable for large companies that are technology consumers, but 
it will remain unacceptable for many developers and smaller end users.   
It is too ambiguous, too obviously anti-open source and requires you to 
waive certain important legal rights in the event of a dispute.

Your suggestion that we ought to just acquiese to MSFT because they 
might have us by the short and curlys is simply not credible.   If MARID 
chooses ClassicSPF and Microsoft is granted patents that appear to cover 
this technology, we have plenty of prior art to invalidate such patents.

> is one of the most popularly used MTAs.
Without speculation then, I personally will not deploy an encumbered 
Sender-ID in my company.

---

From: "Michel Bouissou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:22:35 +0200 (CEST)

> being just for the purpose of defending the public at large against

<irony>
It's an interesting new concept : Make sure we get eaten by the lion
today, so we are sure we don't have any risk of being possibly attacked by
a wolf at some unknown later time ;-)

MS has publicly announced its intention of getting much more patents
covering every possible area this year (if I remember well, the figure was
something like 20,000 ?). This is no hidden agenda, this is public,
published information. If they get as many patents, they will just turn
computer science into a minefield where you can't walk without the risk of
seing an unknown MS patent burst under your feet. That's great.

So for sure, chosing as a standard an algorithm which is already covered
by alledged IPR from a company which has a so good record of acting for
the community good in a disinterested way, is the best choice we can
make...
</irony>

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:53:46 -0400

On Aug 27, 2004, at 8:01 AM, Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:

> It makes no sense to say "here we have some verifiably homegrown IP 
> with no encumberances and here we have some encumbered IP.   Let's use 
> the encumbered IP rather than the unencumbered IP because otherwise we 
> might get sued by parties unknown".

Is there a connection between "verifiably homegrown" and patent claims?

You are correct that the parties are unknown.  If this were an arcane 
subject area, it is most likely that they would remain unknown and 
probably non-existent.  However e-mail and electronic messaging and 
anti-spam are hot areas of intellectual property.  I did take a stroll 
through the USPTO database and there are numerous, numerous patents in 
this area.  And these do not include the pending patents that cannot be 
seen.

Also, if company XYZ came forward tomorrow and claimed covering IPR, 
should we ignore them?

-andy

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:43:13 -0400

> been overlooked or given light treatment.

Andy,

Perhaps you can explain to us how chairs are planning on deciding on the 
IPR issues, and what information should the WG members be providing? 
Should input of non-members such as ISPs be solicited? Are we taking RFC 
3669 into account, especially the part about inability to have consensus 
on IPR issues?

> abuse Microsoft may undertake while armed with a patent.  However, there 
> has been little discussion regarding Microsoft's willingness and ability 
> (via deep pockets) to fend off counter patent claims.  Should Sender ID 
> go forward with the acceptance of Microsoft's IPR, it leaves little 
> doubt that another entity claiming rights to such technology will have 
> to go through Microsoft to find remedy.  However, if MARID were to 
> produce another standard such as Classic SPF or even CSV, who will 
> defend a legal claim against it?

The problem that this will only happen if they get sued. For example, 
there are a bunch of patent holders currently suing various companies 
such as the JPEG patent, video streaming patent (Acacia), etc. We don't 
see Microsoft counter suing while they may have patents of their own 
(especially in regards to video). So relying on them to sue any 
potential counterclaimaints is a non-issue since they will not do so 
until provoked. In regards to possibilities of someone for SPF, that is 
always open. However, this is a normal risk that any standard faces.

In addition, IMHO the reciprocal license only helps against companies 
that will use Sender-ID. Many patent trolls are simply shell companies 
that hold IPR and have no products, thus no helping with the license. Of 
course, I am not a lawyer, but the lawyers present can provide their 
take on that.

> specifically attributed their claim to draft-ietf-marid-protocol.  Given 
> that Microsoft's patent application and original IPR claim covered a 
> Caller ID document which used XML and not SPF, is this a reasonable 
> assumption?  It should be noted that it was the MARID working group that 
> persuaded Microsoft to use the SPF syntax.  Microsoft's first choice was 
> XML.
> 

In my role as an ASRG co-chair, I formally submitted a request to the 
Microsoft's legal department on March 1st, 2004 asking whether their IPR 
claims extend to all the drafts that were the output of the ASRG and 
input to the MARID WG including RMX, DMP, SPF, MTA MARK, etc. I received 
a response from the legal department that my message was received. I 
discussed this in person with Harry Katz and George Webb at a 
conference, and I followed up by sending another email message to the 
legal department. My messages were acknowledged but no response, 
negative or positive, was ever received. It has been six months, and the 
lack of a simple "no" response, makes me suspicious. This also points to 
how slow the legal department is and that relying on them as the FAQ 
suggests might not be a good idea.

On the other hand, Bob Atkinson who is the author of Caller ID showed up 
in the ASRG list in May of 2003 discussing RMX 
(http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg/current/msg04333.html). 
Based on the content of those messages as well as other information, it 
seems to me that whatever IPR is being claimed cannot be older than that 
date. At that time the RMX draft was already published. Therefore, it 
would seem logical that PRA or XML might be the IPR in question.

However, the problem with patents is once granted they are assumed valid 
until proven otherwise. So even if a patent somehow is granted on other 
aspects of Sender-ID by whomever, it will cost money and effort to 
disprove it.

> -  If it is reasonable to assume that Microsoft's patent application and 
> claimed IPR can and/or do reach beyond draft-ietf-marid-core and 

That I will grant you.

> also has an equally or more unfriendly license toward open source yet is 
> one of the most popularly used MTAs.

I am sorry Andy, but you are comparing apples and oranges. The main 
problem with this specific patent license is the fact that a signed 
agreement is required. DJB to my knowledge does not require that. The 
legal issues surrounding this patent license, as well as fear of letting 
a potential competitor know about your activities, privacy issues, 
revockability, etc. are all related specifically to this requirement. It 
is unfair to say that Qmail's license is more or equally restrictive 
since the comparison is not taking this specific point into account.

Considering that the four open source MTAs (postfix, exim, qmail and 
sendmail) together constitute a majority of Internet MTAs, it is vital 
that a license on any email related technology takes the majority of 
deployed MTAs into account. And since lawyers have stated that this 
license is possibly incompatible with the licenses under which some of 
these are distributed, that might be detrimental to the overall deployment.

Additionally, while I do not want to start war mongering against 
Microsoft, nevertheless Microsoft develops email software, and competes 
more heavily with open source software than most other companies, 
especially when marketing. Therefore, it is natural to assume that many 
parties would be naturally suspicious of Microsoft's intentions, 
especially in the light of the fact that this license may be 
incompatible with open source licenses. Therefore, people including my 
own company, would think twice before signing this license, especially 
when open source software is used.

In closing, a quote from RFC 3669 (section 5.3):

"The issue is not whether a particular piece of technology is 
IPR-impacted -- we use IPR-impacted technology every minute. The 
question is how much the IPR protection will limit the technology's 
usefulness in building a robust, highly useful Internet."

Yakov

---

From: Kevin Peuhkurinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:55:24 -0400

Andrew Newton wrote:

>> with no encumberances and here we have some encumbered IP.   Let's 
>> use the encumbered IP rather than the unencumbered IP because 
>> otherwise we might get sued by parties unknown".
>
>
Only in that by having "verifiably homegrown" technology posted publicly 
on the Internet, it would bolster our (hypothetical) case to get a 
patent claim dismissed.   See below.

> this area.  And these do not include the pending patents that cannot 
> be seen.
>
I don't think it is valid to decide not to use a particular technology 
just because one day a patent claim may be made against it, at least as 
long as we are confident that there is no existing patents that cover 
it.    As well, I don't think we could rely on IPR holders to 
necessarily sue Microsoft first.   If the Eolas patent gets revoked, 
other IPR holders may decide that going after MSFT is too risky and may 
instead strong arm smaller developers and distributors into paying 
ongoing royalties instead.

In any case, all of this is pure speculation on both of our parts.   
There is no company XYZ.   If they showed up tomorrow and claimed IPR of 
course we couldn't ignore them, but until they do, they are purely 
hypothetical.    What is fact is that we have been offered an IPR 
license which is plainly unacceptable to a large percentage of people 
here.    I don't think you can argue around that by saying that if we 
don't accept it, something worse may come along later.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:11:07 -0700

Andrew,

AN> -  Many a message have been dedicated toward discussing the potential
AN> abuse Microsoft may undertake while armed with a patent.  However, 
AN> there has been little discussion regarding Microsoft's willingness and
AN> ability (via deep pockets) to fend off counter patent claims.  Should
AN> Sender ID go forward with the acceptance of Microsoft's IPR, it leaves
AN> little doubt that another entity claiming rights to such technology 
AN> will have to go through Microsoft to find remedy.  However, if MARID
AN> were to produce another standard such as Classic SPF or even CSV, who
AN> will defend a legal claim against it?

My primary reactions to this paragraph and the comments in response to
it is that it is distracting and that this group is not particularly
competent to pursue it.

(The idea that we should be more comfortable with knowing of an
encumbrance and that it has deep pockets to defend it, than with
proposals that have unknown encumbrance and no known pockets to defend
it, strikes me as clever but pretty bizarre. Think of the implications
for all other IETF work...)

As has been noted, the fact that something is not currently identified
as being encumbered does not mean that something won't surface later.
(That's why they are called submarine patents.)

I am used to seeing IETF working groups deal with what is in front of
them. I am used to seeing IETF working groups get thoroughly bogged
down, when they try to explore abstract hypotheticals, particularly when
they involve social issues, such as the law.

When companies assert IPR for work in the IETF, I am used to seeing
rather simple questions pursued: Are the terms for use of the IPR
acceptable to the community and does the community think it likely that
the company will act in good faith?

I have mostly been finding the extensive debate about 'the open source'
requirements to be a bit odd, in terms of the IETF requirements. Useful
input, perhaps, but hardly definitive.  Microsoft has iterated their IPR
documents.  The changes have been significant.

If anything, I find it reassuring that they are clear about their limits
and that those limits seem to fall within the range of limits this
community has accepted from others.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>

---

From: Paul Iadonisi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:16:26 -0400

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 06:48, Andrew Newton wrote:

[snip]

> best course of action be to secure the best-possible license?

  To the above, absolutely not.  If, in fact, the IPR claims extend
beyond what the holder has contributed, then I don't know how anyone can
continue to say that the IPR holder has done us any favors.  Patenting
someone else's work should not be rewarded in any way.
  I know a lot of work has gone into these drafts.  But too often I find
in other venues that people are simply unwilling to give up on a design,
a product, an elegant hack, whatever, because it took so much effort to
reach that point.  Even it is clear that that is what should be done. 
Starting over is not fun.
  But if it is determined that the IPR hinders adoption seriously -- and
I gave a specific example of how would hinder my own adoption -- then it
is serious enough that it needs to either be dropped, or the IPR holder
needs to be persuaded to come up with a better license.  Or in this
case, both: drop it for now, and reconsider it later if the IPR holder
comes up with a better license.  One that satisfies both proprietary and
FOSS licensed products.  We now have two expert opinions from prominent
lawyers in the FOSS arena that state clearly that this license is not
satisfactory.

> is one of the most popularly used MTAs.

  This discussion has confused me.  Qmail is not a standard.  Refusing
to use qmail because of the license (my primary reason) does not make
one a second class internet citizen of sorts.  There are many other SMTP
implementations out there licensed under more favorable terms such as
the GPL and BSD licenses.
  But a patent license is different.  *Every* implementation of
Sender-ID needs to execute a license.  Because this is on a standards
track, every SMTP server will need to implement Sender-ID.  That in turn
will require Exim, Courier-MTA, and PowerMail to either change their
licenses (an entirely unacceptable solution for most) or become second
class citizens because they cannot implement Sender-ID.
===
  On the issue of the IPR holder coming to the defense of those who
implement Sender-ID, the FOSS community doesn't need it, or I would
guess, even want it.  What needs to happen is for efforts like that of
the Public Patent Foundation and others like it to get more broad
support.  But that's a topic for another forum.
  I'm also boggled that you are endorsing the kind of vagueness that
many of us are trying to get some clarification on.  If the IPR holders
claims extend beyond -core and -pra, then we want answers.  We don't
want so-called 'favorable' license terms 'just in case'.  That sounds
like it comes from another, unnamed software vendor who still thinks the
the Linux using world should take out a license with them 'just in
case'.  It borders on extortion.  Software patents cause enough
problems.  Lets not make it worse by endorsing the licensing of
unspecified technology that someone *might* have IPR claims over.

-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:17:05 -0400

On Aug 27, 2004, at 9:43 AM, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:

> Perhaps you can explain to us how chairs are planning on deciding on 
> the IPR issues, and what information should the WG members be 
> providing?

While there is no formula, input such as yours is definitely an example 
others should follow.

>  Should input of non-members such as ISPs be solicited?

That is fine, but they should speak for themselves.

>  Are we taking RFC 3669 into account, especially the part about 
> inability to have consensus on IPR issues?

I do not understand the question.  However, RFC 3669 is an excellent 
document and everybody should read it.

-andy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:07:07 -0400

On Aug 27, 2004, at 1:16 PM, Paul Iadonisi wrote:

> many of us are trying to get some clarification on.

I am not endorsing anything.  Please reread the very first paragraph of 
my message.

-andy

---

From: Paul Iadonisi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:31:08 -0400

> I am not endorsing anything.  Please reread the very first paragraph of 

  Point taken.  No offense was intended.  The rest of my post still
applies, of course.  I should rephrase the above roughly as 'I would be
boggled by anyone endorsing the kind of vagueness...'

---

From: George Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:01:45 -0700 (PDT)

> will defend a legal claim against it?

In other words, better the devil we know?  I don't think so.  Should
IETF completely abandon standards which are not covered by patents
simply out of fear that they will give rise to lawsuits?

> [...]

Sure.  Just as soon as you tell me exactly what we're licensing.  Why
should we have to buy a pig in a poke?

> is one of the most popularly used MTAs.

"But he did it first!"

> -andy

-- George Mitchell

---

From: "Scott Kitterman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:05:37 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Andrew Newton
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:48 AM
> To: IETF MARID WG
> Subject: on the topic of IPR
>
> speculation as to the actions of others).

Speaking as just one small domain owner, I've been lurking on this list for
months and posting on just a few issues that I felt were particularly
important for someone in my position.

Since I don't run my own MTA, the license terms do not directly affect me.
However, it is critical in my mind that the product of the MARID group be
open to all major MTAs.  If some are excluded, it's not worth my time and
effort to try and understand and keep up with a technology that is only even
potentially effective with a fraction (even if a large fraction) of the MTAs
we may send mail to.

It would not matter to me if an open source friendly license were to prevent
or severely burden implementation in a proprietary product or the reverse.

As long as the MARID solution is not open to the full spectrum of developers
(And I think that is clearly the case currently), I will not be publishing
SPF2 (or whatever they end up being called) records for my domains.

Scott Kitterman

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:08:43 -0400

On Aug 27, 2004, at 2:31 PM, Paul Iadonisi wrote:

> No offense was intended.

None taken. I just want it to be clear.

And I didn't intend to offend you if I did.

-andy

---

From: "David H. Lynch Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:54:55 -0700

> been overlooked or given light treatment. 

    I am new to participation in this group, though like many I have a 
vested interest in a successful standard.

    But what is it that Microsoft claims to actually own ?
    Working with Microsoft is better than working against them, though I 
confess a strong distaste for intellectual property rights in general - 
You can not own ideas.
    Despite my personal views IP is a reality that must be dealt with.
    However, atleast in the U.S. a patent is supposed to be non-obvious, 
unique, not previously published, and represent more than just a 
compilation of peices.

      What I understand of Sender-ID, Caller-ID, and SPF, does not seem 
to contain anything patentable.
       Most of the core principles have been considered numerous times 
over the years. SPAM and Phishing were not the problems they are today 
and the costs were generally not deemed acceptable,
       but validating the sender of a message, and as I see it that is 
really the core of all of this is just not a new idea.
       Storing verification information in DNS TXT records, whether in 
XML or any other format or any of the other bells and whistles that may 
be important parts of a working implimentation and work
       deserving recognition just does not seem patentable to me.

    Regardless, what is it that Microsoft actually owns that is being 
argued about ?

---

From: "David H. Lynch Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:06:02 -0700

Kevin Peuhkurinen wrote:

> that this is the best possible license that Microsoft could offer.   
> It may be acceptable for large companies that are technology 
> consumers, but it will remain unacceptable for many developers and 
> smaller end users.   It is too ambiguous, too obviously anti-open 
> source and requires you to waive certain important legal rights in the 
> event of a dispute.
>
> might have us by the short and curlys is simply not credible.   If 
> MARID chooses ClassicSPF and Microsoft is granted patents that appear 
> to cover this technology, we have plenty of prior art to invalidate 
> such patents.

    If there is a strong case for prior art - then why is there any 
issue at all ? Microsoft can either produce an acceptable license, and 
be part of the process, or not and decide whether they beleive the 
results of MARID infringe on their IP.

    Microsoft's participation is to be highly desired, but if the 
resulting standard includes any License from Microsoft, then the 
standard itself becomes evidence of the validity of the patent on the 
licensed IP. If there is a strong beleif that the IP is not patentable 
either through prior art or otherwise then MARID should not be taking a 
position validating it.

---

From: Greg Connor <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 01:18:07 -0700

(I haven't had time to post in the last month or so, due to moving, an 
illness in the family, and my own anti-spam project at work.  But I have 
been mostly keeping up with the discussion.)

Regarding the MS IPR and license, I have many thoughts and feelings about 
it, some of them conflicting.  In general, I believe the following:

1. I would rather have MS on board than not.  While I don't like the 
"contribution" being encumbered, I also see some advantage to having MS as 
a partner.  Despite the encumbrance, I still think the distribution and 
usage of Sender ID will be faster and wider than without MS as a key 
partner.  In other words, we as a group have put up with their license, so 
I am hoping MS will return the favor and implement Sender ID early and 
often, publicize and market it, and use their big stick on a few others to 
get them to hum along too :)

2. If the license proves to be a problem, MS is free to release their stuff 
under a modified license later.  If enough people complain about, say, not 
getting posted to a mirror site because the mirror site owners and 
operators are afraid they will be accused of "distributing" protected 
material, perhaps MS will modify their license.  They already have modified 
it a bit.

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.

So, in general I support going forward with SenderID becoming an RFC.

I'm going to rant a bit here, but don't let my rant below interfere with 
the high-level assessment, that we should go forward with Sender ID.

<rant>
MS employees had a choice.  They could have chosen to participate in this 
working group much like the rest of us have -- by contributing their ideas 
without worrying about whether they were IPR.  They could have come to the 
table with some good ideas that were NOT encumbered.  They could have 
fought harder against their own legal team to just let it go, and not worry 
about who "owns" what.

Instead MS employees chose to "contribute" something encumbered.  (And I 
use the term "contribute" loosely here because it's clear that MS still 
"owns" it - the rest of us will just be living in it rent free for its 
useful life.  To my mind a real "contribution" of ideas would be totally 
public domain with no license needed, and the patent claim would be 
withdrawn.

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.

Maybe their hands were tied, but still, they could have fought back against 
their own lawyers, and in doing so demonstrated to the group and the world 
that they are interested in contributing to the greater good and not 
working their own agendas through us.  I have some respect for Jim and 
Harry, but I would have had a lot more if they had been able to come back 
to the group and say "Hey we hogtied the lawyers and whatever part of the 
document you want to use, go for it"

So.  In the future, if I participate in other working groups, my lesson 
learned from this one is that I WILL look a gift horse in the mouth. 
Encumbered IPR is NOT FREE.  If it doesn't have a substantial benefit over 
the non-encumbered idea, the non-encumbered idea should always win.  A 
group such as ours should not hand-wave and dismiss IPR concerns from the 
start by saying "A royalty-free license will be provided later". 
Encumbered ideas should be entertained, but not as welcome as ideas given 
free and clear.

I would suggest to any future group considering protected property as part 
of a proposed standard, that they should 1. evaluate whether the licensed 
property is clearly better, and hence worth the hassle of licensing, and 2. 
evaluate the license itself early and often, and not just accept a promise 
that a license will be provided later.  If it is really the *best* idea, it 
will win, and people will license it.  If it is just as good as the free 
idea, TAKE the free idea over the licensed one :)
</rant>

All that said, I still think the end product is worth it.  What was brought 
to the table was nowhere near as great as the collaborative, creative 
process we all participated in.  The input drafts were good.  The RFC we 
will come up with will be better than any of the inputs.

And, I sincerely hope that MARID continues to do useful work and doesn't 
stop at the first RFC.  There will be revisions, best practices statements, 
actual implementations to share and test, feedback to be shared on honing 
the process, etc.  There are statistics to be gathered and shared, 
forwarders to be pestered and guided toward doing the right thing, 
whitelists to create, maintain, and use, and much more.  Even if MARID no 
longer exists as an IETF group at some point in the future, we have still 
formed some very good relationships and I would love to keep communication 
lines open :)

--
Greg Connor <[email-masked]>

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:00:30 -0400

On Aug 28, 2004, at 1:06 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> either through prior art or otherwise then MARID should not be taking 
> a position validating it.

Actually, there is nothing this working group can do to validate or 
invalidate Microsoft's IPR.

After looking at their license and IPR claim, we can decide not to 
further Sender ID in the standards process, or we can decide to send it 
on in acceptance of their IPR claim, or we can decide to send it on 
while ignoring their IPR claim.

The latter has not been discussed here much.

-andy