If we are deposed we may need to deliver up everything we have, as we have it.
We are under no obligation to deliver blue sheets in ASCII readable form
(in fact, I doubt we could reliably read all the email addresses),
or transcribe audio recordings,
or to translate digital presentations into particular formats.
And in any case, were we to be requested to produce a particular format,
the legal types would want a Microsoft format, not xml or ASCII art.
Y(J)S
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 16:39
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Plagued by PPTX again
Hi, Yaakov,
I'm not the right guy to answer this, but I believe the right guy would
say that when we are asked for evidence about prior art, it would be
more helpful if you could actually read the presentations from the
working group meeting where somebody's invention was discussed by other
people three years before the data of the "invention".
I'm not defending that POV, only repeating what I believe the answer to be.
Spencer
On 11/17/2011 8:06 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Martin
Where does the "note well" say that any contribution needs to be readable 10
years hence ?
It says that if you submit/say something that it is under the IPR
stipulations,
and it says that the participant is deemed to have accepted rules of practice
including that what is said/submitted may be made public.
It does not say that everything that I say in a session must be transcribed
and saved in ASCII,
and what I present in slides is no different from what I say.
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf