Subject: Fw: #1198 Implementation = derivative work? (Re: ISSUES How IP is input and Intent...)

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:08:24 -0800

Harald - because it has not been formally stated as a NON-ISSUE by those
with Credential's to lose, it is an issue. You dont get to design law and
but you do get to design conformance process. That said - the idea that if a
Lawyer doesn't say no that it is OK is so freaking stupid that anyone
espousing that needs to IMMEDIATELY be removed from office in the IETF for
arrogant mediocrity IMHO. No offense - but the idea that because the Civil
Attorney's on this list wont say "dont do that" its OK to do is broken.
Civil law
and IP law is a serious issue  and it must be cleaned up so there are no
easily
available avenues to attack the IETF or its processes on and to do that
means
the Advisory Counsel MUST (IMHO) formally state that they have confidence
in the process as defined and that it formally meets the standards of IP
conveyance.

If they wont do that - then the system is broken.

The facts are simple - If the lawyers will not formally say "YES THIS WORKS"
then the answer is "NO IT DOESN'T"... and I know this since I am actively
involved in litigation at the US Federal Level over IP...

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:14 AM
Subject: #1198 Implementation = derivative work? (Re: ISSUES How IP is input
and Intent...)

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg