MEDIA: Is Microsoft Ready to Assert IP Rights over the Internet?
"william(at)elan.net" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mxcomp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0411171936460.6018-100000__16373.1824643493$1100751939$gmane$org@sokol.elan.net> |
[I have my own comments about all this but they are not for public list, but I'll hint you that while SenderID license may well be resolved soon, this may actually make matters worth for opensource internet community if you look at the larger perspective of what Microsoft is up to] http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1714680,00.asp Is Microsoft Ready to Assert IP Rights over the Internet? By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols November 5, 2004 Has Microsoft been trying to retroactively claim IP (intellectual property) rights over many of the Internet's basic protocols? Larry J. Blunk, senior engineer for networking research and development at Merit Network Inc., believes that might be the case. Blunk expressed these concerns about Microsoft's Royalty Free Protocol License Agreement in a recent note to the IETF's Intellectual Property Rights Working Group. Specifically, Blunk suggested that Microsoft seemed to be claiming IP rights to many vital Internet protocols. And by so doing, "Microsoft is injecting a significant amount of unwarranted uncertainty and doubt regarding non-Microsoft implementations of these protocols," Blunk said. Blunk pointed out that Microsoft is claiming some form of IP rights over "a total of 130 protocols which Microsoft is offering for license." Many of the listed protocols are [IETF] RFC [request for comment] documents, including but not limited to the core TCP/IP v4 and TCP/IP v6 protocol specifications," he said in his note. Some of the RFC protocols that Microsoft asserts that it may have IP rights over, such as the TCP/IP protocols and the DNS (Domain Name System), form the very bedrock of the Internet's network infrastructure. "Microsoft does not specify how this list of protocols was derived and to what extent they have investigated their possible rights holdings over these protocols," Blunk said. "The list appears to be a near but not completely exhaustive list of public protocols implemented in Microsoft product" It is quite likely that an individual or organization would be intimidated into signing the license agreement simply due to Microsoft's vast financial and legal resources," he said http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041107154122603 ... Meanwhile, Microsoft is quietly moving forward with its patent plans. News.com has a fascinating article that quotes a spokesman as saying that they are seeking to enter into cross-licensing deals with the top 30 technology companies, so that they can have access to the patents they are most interested in and can offer their customers indemnification from patent infringement lawsuits. How charming. A little club. The "We Are The Only Ones Allowed to Write Software Any More" ... Speaking of anticompetitive moves, by now you have seen the eWeek report on Microsoft's Royalty Free Protocol License Agreement on Internet protocols and the Larry Blunk email that started it all. Larry Rosen has noted that this license appears to be like the Sender ID license, which means that the obvious remedy is for standards bodies to stand firm against this license. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=2Z7Tb-70A-9%40gated-at.bofh.it ... I also briefly met with Ryan Hamlin, the GM of Microsoft's Safety Technology & Strategy group, and he's interested in attempting a second try at the patent license negotiation between us (well, Larry Rosen) and a more senior attorney at Microsoft. So, it may not be entirely hopeless that Sender ID be entirely usable by open source. -- Daniel Quinlan ApacheCon! 13-17 November (3 SpamAssassin http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ http://www.apachecon.com/ sessions & more)