John,
What you said is all true, but obviously it has nothing
to do with what you responded to. I said (in effect) that -
if one set of lawyers contact another set of lawyers, we may
have to take some action and we should have the mechanisms in
place to allow that.
What that might have to do with someone posting a counter
claim in an E-mail message is beyond me...
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:24 AM
To: Eric Gray; Simon Josefsson; Andrew Sullivan
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Removal of IETF patent disclosures?
Importance: High
--On Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:43 AM -0500 Eric Gray
<eric(_dot_)gray(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
Another point to consider is that a very-likely-to-be-valid
reason for removing an IPR disclosure is if an organization's
legal representative(s) convince the IETF's legal beagles
that an IPR disclosure was made innappropriately - such as
anonymously, or by an explicitly unauthorized person (such
as a disgruntled ex-employee or a competitor). There must
be a way to handle this situation.
On the other hand, a disgruntled ex-employee, a particularly
nasty competitor, or someone who went to law school on Mars
might try to attack a legitimate posting by claiming that an
earlier posting was invalid and asking that it be taken down.
The opportunities for DoS attacks and generally nasty behavior
are rife here and, since IETF doesn't have company members,
making an assessment of who is legitimate or not when there are
conflicting claims could become quite costly in IETF and/or
attorney time or money.
Regardless of what the IETF does, there are provisions for
getting almost anything removed from someone else's web site,
especially for web sites hosted in the US and, I believe,
Europe. The company involved could find a judge to issue a
court order requiring that material be removed or even, under
DMCA, make a claim that the earlier posting violated copyright
restrictions and issue a "takedown" demand. Presumably the
IETF would have to comply with court orders and would comply
with a DMCA notice that appeared legitimate. And both of those,
especially the first, give us good protection from bogus
requests (or, worse, a flood of such requests) without causing
us unreasonable vunerability to nonsense.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf