Subject: RE: on the topic of IPR

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:28:00 -0700

> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > 
> >>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.
> > 
> 
> As Markus Stumpf pointed out, Microsoft created Caller-ID, while 
> Sender-ID is the product of this group.

My point was that the fear that Microsoft would somehow gain
undeserved prominence from or 'usurp' SenderID is misplaced.
I don't think it figures. 

> > 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. 
> 
> 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 Eolas patent covers work that I did before the alleged inventor.

Microsoft has clearly decided it is not going to get taken by another
Eolas type patent. Short of the USPTO burning down a second time 
and all records being lost (if only!) the only way to get any
protection against a patent suit is to file for a patent yourself
and hope you got yours in first.

Then you file continuations and interference claims for 20 years.

---

From: Markus Stumpf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 05:11:19 +0200

> I don't think it figures. 

So why does Microsoft claim everywhere Sender-Id is their effort?
Callid-Id is at best, nothing more.

> and hope you got yours in first.

Correct me if I am wrong ...
1) Prior art nullifies a patent (I think this is even the case in the USA)
2) This mailing list is publicly archived a few places and mailboxes
   throughout the Internet. Newspapers have writen articles up and down
   about how Caller-Id/Sender-Id works. So the principle is well documented.
3) No one can claim IPR unless s/he can prove s/he invented it first
   which will be kinda hard because of 2)
4) Now:
   a) Nobody owns the patent -> nothing to worry, no one can claim it from
      now on (or better even since about 1.5 years ago)
   b) Microsoft owns the patent -> we all have to worry
   c) someone claims prior art
      -> MS will loose the patent
      -> s/he can register the patent

So for me there is no difference whether MS has the patent besides the
fact that if MS has the patent we're all at their will.
The difference for MS is only they can control the Sender-Id technique
with the patent.

I really don't understand why the license has to have any restrictions?
Why do they put in this sublicensing thingy?
Why don't they simply say:
  - we hold the patent
  - we grant everyone and every company a 20/50/100 years irrevocable
    license to make use of the IPR covered by this patent free of
    charge.
They could even transfer the patent to the IETF/ISOC and make a contract
they will never have to pay any license fees nor can someone revoke the
license for them to use the IPR covered.

They do neither and because of that I neither trust nor do I believe them.
This is nothing special about Microsoft, it is generic to companies that
size and that historic behaviour (and to a lot of others, too).

	\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: "David H. Lynch Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:40:49 -0700

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

>and all records being lost (if only!) 
>
    Please do not wish for something like that. It would be horrible.

    The best protection we have against the patent system is the system 
itself.
    It is already admittedly failing to be able to properly review the 
increasing volume of incoming patents.
    It is the bulk of existing patents - both recent and expired, that 
provide the greatest protection against
    the barage coming in.
    It is the massive volume coming in that will choke the system - and 
in the worst case scenario
    atleast twenty years from now all patents currently in effect will 
have expired
    But every expired patent becomes an obstacle to granting a new one 
anywhere close.
    While I beleive that all patents - but particularly software patents 
are just plain a bad idea.
    it is unlikely that theoretical arguments about the failure of the 
patent system to actually serve
    the purpose it was intended for will ever matter.
    But the practical failure of the system to work becoming mired in 
its own exponential growth
    as well as the technical problems of trying to distinguish the ever 
diminishing gnats difference
    between an existing or expired patent  and a new one will eventually 
kill it.

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:13:58 -0400

>>and hope you got yours in first.
...
> license for them to use the IPR covered.

I don't understand it either. The patent trolls are not going to be 
caught with the license anyway. Perhaps, a lawyer (Anne?) can explain this?

> size and that historic behaviour (and to a lot of others, too).

It is interesting to note that RFC 3669 recommends using historical 
behavior of the IPR holder as part of the overall decision on IPR issues:

"  If working group participants are dissatisfied with the confidence
    level they can obtain directly about licensing terms for a particular
    technology, they can possibly extrapolate from history.  In order for
    licensed technology to become a draft standard, at least two
    independent licenses need to have been issued.  If the IPR claimant
    for the technology the working group is considering has licensed
    other technology in the past, there is a record of the sorts of terms
    they are willing to grant, at least in those specific cases.  This
    sort of thing is weak but everything counts, and it may be of some
    help.
"

It would be interesting to see what this evaluation what bring up in 
regards to Microsoft.

Yakov