Subject: RE: [Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure

From: "Jim Lyon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 16:49:56 -0700

Tripp,

If you scroll down on the page that Microsoft referenced, you'll find a
link to the actual license text
(http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/d/3/bd3b5463-c461-409c-b29f-51
2218d3f3e6/senderid_license.pdf) 

-- Jim Lyon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tripp Cox
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 7:43 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Deploy] Insufficient Microsoft IPR disclosure 

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.

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:26:14 -0400

>2218d3f3e6/senderid_license.pdf)

But not the patent application contents, nor any guarantees about what 
additional claims Microsoft might add to the claims over the years 
following submission of the application.

Regardless of the wording of the license (and I do have issues with the 
wording of the license), this is badness.

At this point, though, the whole thing appears moot. If open source folks 
won't use the mechanism, it's not going to reach critical mass in 
deployment and thus is going to fail. Years from now, we'll be able to look 
back and see that there was a chance to save the utility of email. but 
Microsoft's lawyers insisted on protecting their questionable IPR, rather 
than benefitting in a much greater way from saving the utility of email for 
the planet. So sorry.