[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Section 6.5: Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions

John - I am speaking from simple UCC which clearly says any property with a
value of more than $500 takes a signature to convey to anyone. The issue is
that the Court's and especially those based on Judge Grimm's Digital
Evidence tests which were published just last week, clearly puts the IETF
in a place where it is publishing IP it clearly hasn't completed the
conveyance to, and that its "Email Only" process of transferring IP Ownership
doesn't work since the Email cannot be authenticated or proven as reliable
or factual.

By the way - in this matter, which sets the bar-height here,  the Judge Paul
Grimm (A Federal District Magistrate and the Chief Magistrate at that)
specifically threw out a bunch of Emails as unauthenticated and unreliable
as Court Evidence, meaning that the IETF's IP Conveyance process just got
bombed in a US District Court.

http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/Lorraine%20v.%20Markel%20-%20ESIADMISSIBILITY%20OPINION.pdf

This totally sets aside the IETF's Email Only process as unreliable and
failing to meet the Daubert or Frye-Test requirements for its admission as
'expert testimony' as to some digital event.

By the way that this is not coming from Wilmer-Hale is also an issue itself,
eh Jorge?

Gotcha!

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf at jck.com>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>; "Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Section 6.5: Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions




--On Monday, 14 May, 2007 09:22 -0700 todd glassey
<tglassey at earthlink.net> wrote:

  In draft x author X reproduces code y written by Y.  Author
  X got the permission of Y to do this, and might note it in
  the acknowledgements of draft x:  "Thanks to Y for the
  permission to reproduce code y in this contribution,
  readers can use code y as specified in BCP 78bis."


How does the submitter prove they have legal capability to
submit third-party IP's to the IETF or does the IETF even care?


Todd,

You may disagree based on your extensive legal experience, but
my impression is that, if the IETF requires that the submitter
assert that he, she, or it has that permission/capability, then,
if the submitter is (deliberately or not) incorrect about that,
it is mostly the submitter's problem, not the IETF's.  That is,
IMO, the right situation since one doesn't want the IETF in the
business of trying to evaluate who has which permissions and who
does not ... or, to put that in the context of your note, of
evaluating whether the submitter's proof is adequate.

I suggest that, for these types of issues --remembering that we
are talking about copyrights and not patents-- we want the IETF
to act as nearly as possible in the role of a publisher who does
not get in the middle of those ownership rights disputes.   Even
if we were talking about patents, the IETF would be publishing
information that is supposed to be public, not "practicing" the
invention.

     john



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