Subject: DEPLOY - IPR on Sender-ID not sufficiently disclosed

From: Graham Murray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:35:12 +0100

Despite the 23rd August deadline, the full IPR claims on Sender-ID
have not been disclosed. The licence terms have been disclosed, but
insufficient (almost no) information has been given on what the
claimed IPR covers.

It is not possible for me to deploy Sender-ID without knowing what is
covered by the claimed IPR. Therefore, I suggest that Sender-ID be
abandoned and an alternative - such as SPF - be submitted instead.

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:05:02 -0400

On Aug 24, 2004, at 10:35 AM, Graham Murray wrote:

> The licence terms have been disclosed, but

Please reread:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03495.html

-andy

---

From: Ryan Ordway <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:01:19 -0700

> http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03495.html

	Thanks Andrew. It sounds like some people may
have missed the fact that IPR claims are being made on
both -pra and -core:

> 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. 

	My question is, what portions of -core are covered?
Harry's answer above seems to suggest that the entirety of
-core and -pra are covered by Microsoft's IPR claim, am I
right? Until this is explicitly spelled out, I think any
discussion or action is moot. 

	Ryan
-- 
HELO, my name is root... you have SIGKILLed my father... prepare to vi!

---

From: Koen Martens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:15:26 +0200

> http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03495.html

Is it correct that the only phrases giving any hint of what is being
patented are:

  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. 

Furthermore, I see a couple of checkboxes repeating what is in the pdf
document posted by Harry Katz and a lot of blank fields.

Is it correct that this means that Sender-ID itself as well as PRA are
patent pending by microsoft?

Does this also mean that in effect, large parts of the spf syntax are
now microsofts property or will be so in the near future?

I don't see how the post you mentioned clarifies anything. It only adds
to the concern.

Koen Martens

-- 
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:35:18 -0400

> patent pending by microsoft?

Please don't get hung up on the file names of the drafts.

> now microsofts property or will be so in the near future?

Just how do you arrive at this conclusion?

-andy

---

From: "Mark C. Langston" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:39:24 -0700

> now microsofts property or will be so in the near future?

That's my current worry, and now I'm actually considering having an IP
lawyer friend of mine look over the language to see whether or not
Microsoft would have a case if they came after me for implementing SPFv1
checks in my software.

If that's true, it's a crying shame.

-- 
Mark C. Langston            GOSSiP Project          Sr. Unix SysAdmin
[email-masked]   http://sufficiently-advanced.net    [email-masked]
Systems & Network Admin      Distributed               SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org       E-mail Reputation       http://www.seti.org

---

From: Koen Martens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:46:26 +0200

> Please don't get hung up on the file names of the drafts.

What else is there? I can reread the post again and again, but frankly i
know of more useful things to do with my time (developing software is
one, spending time with my loved ones is another). I'll repeat:

Is microsoft patenting Sender-ID and PRA ?

If no: what is being patented?

If yes: who will bother with Sender-ID and PRA ?

> Just how do you arrive at this conclusion?

It's mere speculation. Give us some facts, and the speculation will
stop.

Sender-ID uses SPF syntax, Microsoft claims to have patents pending on
Sender-ID and PRA, therefore it is not impossible that microsoft is
trying to patent SPF syntax. Is that so illogical?

Koen

---

From: Mark Lentczner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 13:55:46 -0700

> trying to patent SPF syntax. Is that so illogical?

Yes, that doesn't follow.  The IPR specifically states that it only 
covers what is in the core and pra drafts.  It does not cover anything 
in the protocol draft, which is where the syntax of the records and the 
interpretation of that syntax are defined.  If Microsoft was going to 
claim any IP rights over that they would have had to file an IPR for 
the protocol draft as well.  They did not.

	- Mark

---

From: Graham Murray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:07:07 +0100

> discussion or action is moot. 

And a sizeable portion of -core is based on SPF, which was merged with
Microsoft's Caller-ID to form Sender-ID. So if Microsoft are claiming
their IPR covers all of -core then (logically) one of the following
must be true

Either:-

a) Microsoft already had pending (or potential) IPR claims covering
SPF-classic before the merge into -core.

  OR

b) They are now claiming IPR on someone else's work.

The alternative is that the IPR does not cover all of -core, in which
case please can they clarify which parts of -core are (potentially)
encumbered by the IPR?

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:13:08 +0200

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 02:05:02PM -0400,
 Andrew Newton <[email-masked]> wrote 

> http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03495.html

I reread it for the third time and I still do not find:

* where to get the patents we talk about (*). What do they contain,
exactly?

* what parts of -core are covered (assuming that all of -pra is
covered)?

I asked the same questions to [email-masked] without any result
so far.

Patents are available online, for instance
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,775,781.WKU.&OS=PN/6,775,781&RS=PN/6,775,781
is a patent by Microsoft which covers programs like sudo on Unix.