Marshall Eubanks <tme(_at_)multicasttech(_dot_)com> writes:
I would divide this a little differently
- there are removals that can be done automatically. Some of these
- exact duplicates
- spam (or any other postings) _that don't mention patent rights or
- postings with offensive words
These do not bother me. (There should, however, be a list of these
reasons in a BCP IMO.)
I'd move the last category in under the spam: just because a patent
license contains some unrelated word shouldn't mean it must be removed.
If a disclosure regarding some patent contains offensive words, I think
readers would prefer to deal with it.
- then there are removals that require judgement, which make me very
Suppose that, as a result of a border dispute, someone from a
posts a claim that all of Large Company X's IPR is now made available
under the terms of GPL v3.
This might be done as part of a wider campaign of cyber warfare.
Removing this is making a judgement on the validity of IPR claims,
which we claim we do not do. It would be
much better to reject such messages before they are ever posted.
Rejecting disclosures appears to be a judgement call too.
One solution would be to require a TDMA like confirmation of the
existence of posters (do they
exist, and are they with the company they claim to be speaking for)
_before_ the posting is accepted.
So, I would suggest
- a published list of reasons for automatic rejection of a disclosure
- a requirement that a company confirm the validity of a disclosure
before it is posted publicly.
Note also that there are third-party disclosures, which by their nature
aren't authorized by the patent-holding organization.
Ietf mailing list