Subject: If the law trumps IETF policy...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:57:15 -0000

What's the point of trying to specify IETF policy which can be over-ruled by
the courts ?

For instance, why should the IETF make a statement about the applicability
of a patent, of which the ultimate arbiter is a court ?  At best the IETF
statement can be "trumped" by the court; at worst such a statement leaves
"the IETF" open to legal proceedings for giving erroneous "advice".

The patent system is a legal structure, developed and encouraged by
governments, and enforced by courts. I don't see how IETF policy can
overturn a system which "trumps" it.

	Regards,

	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BTexact Technologies

	e-mail:   [email-masked]
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications
plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British
Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information
is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please
notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
immediately.

From: Russell Nelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:10:08 -0500
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipr-technology-rights-02.txt

Keith Moore writes:
 > On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:07:24 -0800
 > "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[email-masked]> wrote:
 > 
 > > Your employer is responsible for the actions of you as an employee
 > > acting in the course and scope of your duties for them, regardless of
 > > what the IETF policy says. 
 > 
 > Larry thinks he dictates IETF policy.  Don't listen to him.

Larry thinks the law trumps IETF policy.  Don't listen to him if you
think you don't have to comply with the law, or if the law is
different where you are.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com | "What Problem Are You
Trying
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | To Solve?" is a service
mark
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of Crynwr Software.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:57:04 +0100

--On mandag, mars 10, 2003 09:57:15 +0000 [email-masked] wrote:

> What's the point of trying to specify IETF policy which can be over-ruled
> by the courts ?

that's easy - since a) the courts will never rule on 99% of what we do, and 
b) we have no ability to predict what the courts will do in any given case, 
we have to specify IETF policy that does what we want it to do as best we 
can.

> "the IETF" open to legal proceedings for giving erroneous "advice".

which is why the documents go to such great lengths to say that the IETF 
makes no such statement. But we still have to pass around information that 
allows people to make up their own minds about the applicability of a 
patent; the difference can be VERY hard to distinguish in practice.

> overturn a system which "trumps" it.

if we worry more about what a court will say than what is the best thing 
for the Internet, we have lost sight of our goals.

                  Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:09:49 +0100

> What's the point of trying to specify IETF policy which can be over-ruled by

I think that question is a bit too general - it's clear that we can't write
procedures that we are certain could never be overruled by any court, 
in any country.

However, there is certainly no point in specifying IETF policy which
manifestly is at odds with the law of major countries.

> "the IETF" open to legal proceedings for giving erroneous "advice".

It's because of the liability risk that the IETF certainly can't do
this, but must limit itself to requiring disclosure.

> overturn a system which "trumps" it.

We can't. On the other hand, by remaining as a level playing field
organization with technically-based decision taking and required
disclosure, we help to create a climate in which the courts are 
called upon rarely.

   Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:47:45 -0500

> overturn a system which "trumps" it.

Russ's original question was whether employers/sponsors/benefactors are
responsible for IETF participants' behavior -- not whether the IETF
should be making statements about applicability of patents.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg