Subject: [Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure

From: Tripp Cox <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 9:43 -0500

First, let me say that I think the proposed Sender-ID framework is a great 
first step in creating a low-overhead, global sender authentication 
framework.   I would like nothing more than to deploy Sender-ID at 
EarthLink, however a lack of information in the Microsoft IPR claims and 
associated license at present will prevent me from doing so, base on the 
following advise from EarthLink counsel.

The IETF's position on the provision of IP rights in connection with a 
particular patent holder that is proposing a standard require that "working 
groups and participants have as much information about any IPR constraints 
on a technical proposal as possible."  What we have received, to date, from 
Microsoft is a short description of what Microsoft intends to include 
within its license.  A link to this licensing position can be found at:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/standards.

Among the areas of concern for EarthLink include:

Timing of the disclosure:

The IPR for the IETF requires timely disclosure of all relevant licensing 
terms.  As stated in Section 6.2 of Intellectual Property Rights in IETF 
Technology: "Timely IPR disclosure is important because working group need 
to have as much information as they can while they are evaluating 
alternative solutions."

Substance of Grant and Lack of Disclosure

Microsoft's proposed license does not meet the requirements of the IPR.  
While Microsoft states that it is willing to license all of its potential 
IPR to implement the standard on a royalty-free basis, Microsoft must also 
disclose any other terms and conditions in connection with this license.  
The disclosure by Microsoft fails to indicate these terms and conditions.  
As a result, we are not able to determine whether the license granted by 
Microsoft will fully enable the full use of Sender ID within a proposed 
standard and if there are any other impacts to integrally related areas 
that may not explicitly be included in the standard but may be necessary to 
fully exploit the standard.  Without having access to the terms and 
conditions of the Microsoft license, this situation cannot fully be 
evaluated.  In addition, it is not clear if all persons  will be able to 
obtain the right to implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights 
with respect to the proposed standard a) under a royalty-free and otherwise 
reasonable and non-discriminatory license, or b) under a license that
contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions,
including a reasonable royalty or other payment, or c) without the need to 
obtain a license from the IPR holder.  The answer to these questions is not 
clear and, as we understand it, Microsoft has been unwilling to address 
these issues.

If Microsoft would be willing to address these issues in a
satisfactory manner, then EarthLink would be willing and able to lend its 
support to the proposed standard.