Thanks for clarifying, given the lack of details I jumped to
conclusions. Still, I don't see how anonymous contributions were
involved?
/Simon
Stephan Wenger <stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org> writes:
Hi Simon,
the case I was thinking about was this one:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070323094639
964
Stephan
On 3/25/08 3:33 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <simon(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org> wrote:
stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org writes:
[...]
If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was
affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse. My
point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such
abuse is significantly reduced.
I think the point would be valid if there were significant abuse today.
I don't know what would qualify as significant here, but there has been at
least one rather high profile antitrust case in the recent history
(semiconductor industry), in which a situation similar to the one we are
discussing has played a role.
If the account at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits
is to be trusted, I can't find many similarities with the situation we
are discussing here. Could you clarify how anonymous contributions
played a role in your example?
/Simon
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf