Subject: RE: Quesiton for Jorge about IP Valuation and the Submission Process."what if the IP value > $500 USD?"

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:28:08 -0400

> Q: So here is the question - Jorge my understanding is that 
> if the value of
> the
> contract is more than $500 and its not covered by the Credit 
> Card Laws or by
> Banking Reg Z, then it ALSO needs a wet signature in most states to be
> binding. Is this correct?

I do not think this is correct.  Why do you think it is?

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 09:40:00 -0700

Jorge

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:28 AM
Subject: RE: Question for Jorge about IP Valuation and the Submission
Process."what if the IP value > $500 USD?"

----------------------------------------------------

let me respond Jorge that because the value of any piece of documentation
can be established and there is court precedent for this based in the cost
of replacing that document. So  the number of hours that go into a document
that someone like Cisco pays an employee to produce has a value... Likewise
so does any submission since that a professional is doing the submission of
rather than something else which would earn money for that entity, so that
said, all documents can be valued in that model based on their cost of
development.

That means that anything that transfers that value, in the form of the
content to the IETF for re-publication as the derivative work would
constitute a 'formal conveyance' of a thing of value. As documented below,
if that value exceeds a certain threshold then signatures are required in
all areas...

Look at the various States - and since the alphabet starts with A lets start
with Alaska... here are the Alaska Statutes (AS Documents) relative to
contracts and their requirements.
http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/LOGON/admin/admin-contracts.htm

a.. AS 45.02.106 definitions: contract, agreement, contract for sale,
present sale, conforming to contract, termination, cancellation.
a.. AS 45.02.201 formal requirements of a contract, provides that a contract
for the sale and purchase of goods must be in writing if the value is more
than $500, enforceability of impaired contract, time limit for providing
written notice of objection to contract terms.
a.. AS 45.02.204 contract form, agreement provisions
a.. AS 45.02.205 term of offer.
a.. AS 45.02.206 offer and acceptance, lapse
a.. AS 45.02.207 offer and acceptance with additional terms.
a.. AS 45.02.208 relevance of performance in construing the contract
a.. AS 45.02.209 modification, rescission, and waiver; exclusions.
a.. AS 45.02.210 delegation of performance, assignment of rights,
exclusions, prohibitions
a.. AS 45.02.319-.322 FOB and FAS terms, CIF and C&F, shipment, delivery of
goods
a.. AS 45.02.601-.616 breach, repudiation, excuse
a.. AS 45.02.701-.725 remedies, standing, statute of limitations

Notice in Alaska Statute  45.02.201 that any and all contracts for more than
$500 must be in writing. Therefore if the conveyance of any IP has a value
which is excess of $500 then it must have some form of "written signatory
transfer" - whether this is done through eSign or by a wet-signature is
really irrelevant - but according to this, it needs to be done.

Notice also that the issues of BCP78 and BCP79 do not address 02.209 as
well... which is of interest to us too!

Also I would formally suggest that we add an ADR/Arbitration Clause to the
Standards Process framework document to meet the 02.701 requirements too. I
have plenty of boiler plate for those by the way.

Todd