Subject: Re: [Asrg] IPR Document Update

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 21:28:48 -0400

Dear Vernon,

1. For the record of all the ASRG members - I am not a lawyer and do not 
claim to be one. The entire purpose of this document that I am keeping on 
my own free time, it to record any IPR issues as they come up on the list. 
I am not searching the USPTO database, not Googling the entire Internet 
looking for patents. Neither am I analyzing them. If you would have taken 
care to go through the list, then you would have seen that no where do I 
offer my own analysis. All statements have been take from either public 
sources or from ASRG list postings.
2. The analysis statement in question was made by Bob Wyman not by me (see
<https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05304.html>https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05304.html), 
I simply paraphrased it.
3. I moved the statement from the notes section to be directly under the 
list posting reference to make it more clear. I also removed the reference 
to DCC which seems to have irked you. I re-quoted the original statement as 
it was written by Bob instead of paraphrasing it.
4. Once again, my list is not intended to keep track of all IPR issues in 
the world, only of the ones that come up on the list. Are you implying that 
I should remove all references to all list postings simply because no one 
on the list except for you is qualified to express any opinions on IPR matters?

Yakov

At 06:24 PM 6/8/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:

> > From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
>
> > The IPR document for the ASRG has been updated. The following was changed:
> >
> > ADDED: Section 4.2.1. Jakob Nielsen's patent on coordinated filtering. 
> This
> > affects systems such as SpamNet, Matador and DCC.
>
>Such obviously false analyses are not helpful.  That I trust you
>didn't intend to make a mistake and don't know why your analysis
>is false for at least one, probably two, and quite possibly all
>three of those mechanisms is all the more reason to not offer such
>analyses in the future.
>
>Statements about which patents affect which tactics based on ignorance
>of those tactics and superficial reading of patent claims asside, your
>list of patents could be interesting to people trying to avoid a few
>arbitrarily chosen patents, but it would be utterly foolish to rely
>on your list instead of a patent search.  Your list can never be
>comprehensive without doing a real patent search, and even then one
>cannot know about impending patents.
>
>I apologize for this less than friendly note, but potentially damaging
>bogus analyses of intellectual property need to be challenged and
>squelched.  In the future, please just collect the patents and leave
>the analyzing to patent lawyers, or at least people who are familiar
>with the various anti-spam mechanisms.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 20:20:05 -0600 (MDT)

> looking for patents. Neither am I analyzing them.

On the contrary, the following words of yours were an analysis or
conclusion of an analysis:

] ADDED: Section 4.2.1. Jakob Nielsen's patent on coordinated filtering. This 
] affects systems such as SpamNet, Matador and DCC.

> ...
> https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/asrg/current/msg05304.html
> I simply paraphrased it.

Your "paraphrase" differs significantly from Mr. Wyman's original,
and not only in the deletion of Cloudmark and addition of the DCC.
He wrote that some mechanisms "may be an infringement or use" while
you wrote "affects systems such as."  Mr. Wyman avoided hazzards that
you leaped on.  Note that your deletion seems almost as arbitrary and
dubious as your addition.  I assume Mr. Wyman listed Cloudmark as well
as SpamNet, because he has heard what I've heard (or better, knows
instead of only heard), that Vipul's Razor, Pyzor, and SpamNet are
three distinct things and that Cloudmark is currently working on
more than SpamNet.

> ...

What?  You're changing the archives of this mailing list?  I'm less
concerned about web pages someone might have, and more concerned about
unchallenged legal claims in a more or less official forum like this.

However, you have repeatedly implied that your list of patents is
somehow comprehensive and authoritative.  I have several times
suppresed the impluse to disagree and urge caution.

>on the list except for you is qualified to express any opinions on IPR matters?

I know I'm not qualifed in general to analyze general IPR matters,
while you've repeatedly implied you are not so limited.  For example,
you might notice that I was careful to not be specific when I disagreed
about the mechanisms (my plural) that you baldly claimed are affected
by that patent.

As I said, your list could be useful, but please do not increase the
hazzards we suffer with ill considered IPR analyses of patents you've
not read and/or anti-spam mechanisms you don't know or care about.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:15:03 -0400

I have also changed the introduction section of the document as follows:

"This document lists various IPR claims related to anti-spam technology 
which came up on the ASRG mailing list."

Since the offending statements have been removed, I see no point in 
continuing this discussion. If you have any further problems, post them to 
the list.

Yakov