Legal experts and at least one internet service provider
have expressed concerns about Microsoft's e-mail sender
authentication plan, known as Caller ID.
Some experts agreed that the technology is promising. However,
Microsoft's claim that it owns patents around Caller ID and its
decision to license the technology to third parties, rather than
submit it to an internet standards body, have annoyed e-mail
experts and domain owners, some of whom said they worry about a
power grab by Microsoft and are wary of signing on to the new
system.
Speaking last week at the RSA Conference in San Francisco,
Microsoft chairman and chief architect Bill Gates set out an
ambitious agenda for deploying Caller ID, saying it would be "very
easy for people to apply", and that Microsoft hoped to have Caller
ID in place by the third quarter, provided it could reach "the
right agreements" with ISPs and e-mail providers.
Gates did not elaborate on what those agreements might involve,
but said that Microsoft had some patents related to "the
fundamentals" of Caller ID which is "royalty free, available for
everyone to use".
At least one e-mail expert who has studied the agreement said it
could be an obstacle to Caller ID's widespread adoption.
"Given the licence they're offering, it's clearly a problem,"
said John Levine of the Internet Engineering Task Force's (IETF's)
Anti Spam Research Group.
Levine said he is concerned because Microsoft has not said what
technology its patents cover. He also took issue with its assertion
in the licence agreement that Caller ID licences cannot be
transferred from one party to another, leaving the job of assigning
licences to Microsoft.
"They could stop giving out licences at any time, or suddenly
say that Caller ID is bundled with Windows."
Microsoft's agreement grants licensees a fully paid,
royalty-free licence to "make, use, sell, offer to sell, import,
and otherwise distribute" licensed implementations of the company's
Caller ID patents.
The company will not seek royalty payments for use of the
patents now or in the future, according to a statement by George
Webb, business manager for Microsoft's Antispam Technology and
Strategy Group.
Microsoft declined to answer questions about what its Caller ID
patent claims cover. The technology is new and its patent
applications are still pending, according to an e-mail statement
from David Kaefer of Microsoft's Intellectual Property &
Licensing Group.
However, the company said its Caller ID licence agreement is not
limited to any single patent, but covers rights to any Microsoft
patent or patent application involved in implementing the Caller ID
specification, Kaefer said.
"Microsoft wants to do more than merely give Caller ID away,
they also want to make sure nobody else can profit from it," said
Steve Frank, a partner in the patent and intellectual property
group of the law firm Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault.
That should not be surprising, considering the time and money it
has invested in designing the new architecture.
"Since they're dedicating it to the public free of charge,
Microsoft doesn't want to be the patsy who builds a foundation just
so other people can come along and erect a building on it, then
sell the building," Frank added.
To protect its investment, Microsoft reserves the right to
incorporate other groups' improvements to Caller ID back into the
specification free of charge, using a so-called "reciprocal
license", Frank said.
Such a process will encourage all parties involved to allow the
Caller ID technology to develop and improve without being hindered
by license restrictions or royalty schemes.
While Microsoft's intentions may be benign, the company's
reliance on individual licence agreements with domain owners is
unconventional, especially if the intention is to encourage broad
internet adoption of Caller ID, Frank said.
"The traditional way to do this is not through reciprocal
licensing but through a standards body that has its own rules for
how people can develop the initial technology and exploit
improvements," he said.
Groups such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE), the IETF and the World Wide Web Consortium have
rules for adopting and protecting another company or group's
intellectual property as part of a technical standard, and are well
situated to take over and promulgate the Caller ID specifications,
he said.
"Those groups have tremendous industry support and can
facilitate adoption and get things done on an efficient basis."
Microsoft may be avoiding standards groups because it does not
want to submit Caller ID to a lengthy approval process or negotiate
with other stakeholders such as Yahoo or America Online over the
final product, Frank said.
However, in shunning standards organisations, Microsoft is
acting contrary to a "standard internet ethos" that technical
standards should be free of legal entanglements, said Robert
Sanders, chief architect at Earthlink.
"It's clear that standards that are unencumbered are the most
successful on the internet, and I don't think it's any different
here. It's in everybody's best interest to make Caller ID easy to
implement legally and technically," he added.
Sanders had not reviewed Microsoft's licence agreement for
Caller ID, but said any standard that is not unencumbered legally
makes him "nervous".
Reluctance to sign licence agreements is common, and Microsoft
is leaving itself open to criticism that it is being "high-handed"
and "dictatorial" with the Caller ID technology, Frank said.
So far, Microsoft has given no indication as to whether it will
consider turning Caller ID over to a standards body, Levine said,
adding that as it stands, the company's licensing model for Caller
ID does not conform to any of the IETF's policies for handling
patents.
Microsoft can still make good on its Caller ID technology, but
it must be clearer about its intentions to make the technology
permanently open and royalty-free, Levine said.
In the absence of involvement by standards organizations, a
clearer statement from Microsoft about its plans for managing
Caller ID might calm fears in the technical community, Levine and
others said.
"If they want to offer free, permanent licences for Caller ID,
that's great, but could you please make your licence say that?"
Levine added.
Paul Roberts writes for IDG News Service