Re: recourse if our rules are violated?

["todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

Harald  - let me ask then...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald at alvestrand.no>
To: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: recourse if our rules are violated?


> Frank Ellermann wrote:
> > todd glassey wrote:
> >
> > > What happens to a filing (after its publication) that is found to
> > > have external IP constraints which were undisclosed???
> >
> > Nothing, only the status line on the front page can be changed.
> Not even that. Only the status line in the indexes listing them can be
> changed.

So then they continue to use 'work product resources' from the WG's although
those issues remain open?


I know you folks hate hearing stuff like this but this is a perfect set of
grounds for a lawsuit - let me explain...

The Sponsor's are investing the Engineering Services and the time those take
from their professional staff in the IETF, so they have a financial standing
in any and all actions taking place within the IETF even if they are not the
submitters or parties to the filing of a particular effort - PERIOD. NO
ARGUMENTS ARE POSSIBLE TO THIS STATUS...

So, if an Entity's efforts are made 'useless or contaminated' by undisclosed
IPR Claims, then they also have a claim against all of the following list:

   1)    The WG Chair for not managing the effort properly and directing
the WG to continue spending the WG's and the Sponsor's IP Development
Efforts on Workproduct for which there are underlying IP Controls/claims
which have not been disclosed intentionally.

   2)    The AD for allowing the effort to proceed and their efforts to be
wasted or worse, those efforts becoming  dependant on the IP that the IETF
doesn't own and as such cannot pass through its "Any and All uses" license.

   3)    The WG Members submitting the effort

   4)    Any and all other IETF members who may have had knowledge of the
IPR.

The fun part is that because the IETF refuses to change its copyright and
license, it and those directly responsible for those refusals (i.e. the
members of the IPR WG) can also be figured in as members of this Defendant's
Class as well as the IESG, and ISOC itself.

This isn't rocket science its simple analysis.

Todd

> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg