Re: [Asrg] IPR Document Update

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

At 08:20 PM 6/8/2003 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:

> > From: Yakov Shafranovich <research@solidmatrix.com>
>
> > 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.
>
>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.
>
> > ...
> > 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
> > 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.
>
>
> > ...
> > 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.
>
>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.
>
> > 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?
>
>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.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg