Subject: Jorge - Answer these question - or face litigation and the ethics committee of your licensing bar assoc's

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:47:53 -0700

Jorge -

I asked you these same questions a number of times,  and you have 
intentionally answered any number of other questions rather than the ones I 
have asked, and you have done so in a manner that tries to invalidate the 
questions that were asked.

I now have formal proof of my commentary about how the IETF's filing process 
prevents IP Patent's from being filed either here in the US or Japan based 
on the works of the IETF being formally included in the definition of PRIOR 
ART by the US Patent office and the Japanese Patent office.  So unless you 
can disprove this commentary, it will have to stand as the truth.It also 
will formally put the IPR WG and more importantly their sponsor's that the 
IETF's conspiracy and direct actions in trying to make US Patent's 
impossible to protect just blew up in its face...

Here are the questions as they were asked...

1)  YES OR NO?:   Under certain circumstances could the publication of IETF 
documents prevent Japanese Patent's from being granted for a Prior Art 
violations?  YES or NO?:

Here is some good JPO info...
http://www.epo.org/patents/patent-information/east-asian/helpdesk/japan/faq.html

http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/linke.cgi?url=/seido_e/s_gaiyou_e/4houe.htm

    2)  YES OR NO?:  Does the publication of IETF documents trigger the one 
year time-clocks on registering materials described in those documents for 
US patent protection? i.e. could the IETF's publication of documents 
interact with or proscribe US and foreign patent filings in some instances? 
YES or NO?:

In re this question, my research at the US PTO is below. It tells me that 
this also is true so unless you can tell me otherwise... According to the US 
PTO apparently all Scientific Publications are considered PRIOR ART 
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm .

Also notice the comment at the bottom of the page "about not having to ever 
have been read" just submitted to the IETF. That means whether the IETF 
publishes of not doesn't matter. Registering the IP with the IETF Trust for 
publication is the act which topples  your house of cards. If you need more 
see also http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/#whatispriorart for a 
rolling
layman's commentary on the issue of PRIOR ART.

As long as we are at it. Lets ask another nasty one...

    3) YES or NO?:  Does the IETF's "respect of other's IP's" per the 
description of BCP78 ss 3.1 include US and Foreign patents?  YES or NO?:

So Jorge - unless you are formally saying the US and Japanese Patent 
Office's websites are wrong, can you please answer the two questions above 
please formally here for Ray and the IETF Chair? And especially Question 3 
before I have a Judge tell you to answer these same questions in a Court of 
Law. One which we both know will in fact happen if you don't answer those 
questions formally here.

Jorge - [in my best Pee Wee Herman] I'm Still Waiting.

---
Personal Disclaimers Apply

TS Glassey 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:02:33 -0700

Dear all,

As Jorge keeps reminding everyone, I am not IETF's attorney. But I am an
attorney, and so I am personally disgusted by the behavior of Todd Glassey
toward another attorney on this forum. 

There is a code of behavior among attorneys and presumably their clients
that promotes the calm and reasoned discussion of issues. That code does not
allow anyone to insist to anyone else that certain "questions" be answered.
There is simply no obligation by anyone to do so short of a subpoena. 

If people have questions they are expected to hire their own attorneys to
get them answered. My ONLY advice to Todd is that he retain his own attorney
to answer his questions. 

At some point, IETF needs a policy to shut down some insulting communicators
for the welfare of the other IETF participants. I've apologized before when
I crossed the line in my emails. I wish now that Todd would apologize and
shut up, or that IETF enforce a formal policy to shut him up.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of TS Glassey
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:48 AM
> To: Contreras, Jorge; [email-masked]; Ray Pelletier - ISOC
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Jorge - Answer these question - or face litigation and the
> ethicscommittee of your licensing bar assoc's
> Importance: High
> 
> Jorge -
>

---

From: "Endre Jarraux Walls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:38:32 -0400

RE: Larry

Agreed - clearly it is the failure of the WG chair to control the behavior
of certain members in these communications, and I'm tired of complaining to
Harald and seeing nothing done. I've contacted him twice with no response,
so now I'll just send this to everyone.

Everyone who contributes on this list does so because they are passionate
about seeing the IETF succeed, and this group is important to the protection
of IP created by IETF members. I'm am certain there are people who read
these emails, and, like myself, restrain themselves from asking questions or
contributing because we have enough strife in our everyday lives to be
called names or given a hard time by someone over email. The behavior just
gets worst and worst every quarter. 

I'm not an attorney, I'm a technologist and there's a code of behavior that
should be followed amongst mature human beings working towards the same goal
period. People are volunteering their time and expertise to help achieve
this common goal, so no one is obligated to do anything; and for someone to
threaten someone else into action when everyone is supposed to be working
together in a consortium is ridiculous and shows a lack of maturity and
overall bad social skills.

The chair needs to do something. The options are: (a.) have a few people
contribute who argue amongst themselves, call each other stupid, and use
quips like this is some Sunday morning political show; or (b.) promote civil
discussion amongst mature individuals in an environment that fosters calm
interaction and collaboration. An environment where everyone's input is
welcomed, provided they deliver it in a respectful manner.

Common sense is commonly ignored.

Endre Jarraux Walls
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:03 PM
To: 'TS Glassey'; 'Contreras, Jorge'; [email-masked]; 'Ray Pelletier - ISOC'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Jorge - Answer these question - or face litigation and the
ethicscommittee of your licensing bar assoc's 

Dear all,

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:04:35 -0700

Larry More smoke and mirrors - But its your response that is unethical 
Counsel.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
To: "'TS Glassey'" <[email-masked]>; "'Contreras, Jorge'" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "'Ray Pelletier - ISOC'" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:02 AM
Subject: RE: Jorge - Answer these question - or face litigation and the 
ethicscommittee of your licensing bar assoc's

> toward another attorney on this forum.

Why - because I am threatening to force the IETF because to answer the 
questions as to whether the IETF's actions interfere with the rights of 
others at the patent level?  You find that offensive - to be accountable for 
your and others actions here.

All you as a licesned attorney had to do is to tell this WG I am formally 
wrong - that the IETF's actions never impugn or interfere with a patent 
application anywhere...

But rather than answer that question - you have this "Outraged Attorney" 
routine here. I suggest that maybe this warrants an Ethics Compliant against 
you to Counsel.

> that promotes the calm and reasoned discussion of issues.

I am not a licensed attorney. You are... So those rules dont apply to me. 
Besides calm discussion is exactly what you and others are trying to 
prevent. I opened the question as to whether the IETF's processes interfer 
with US and Japanese Patent Filing abilitities, and you nor Jorge has 
answered that. Jorge says that the IETF's processes dont address patent's - 
but that wasnt my quesiton. My question was whether the PRIOR ART that the 
IETF's publications put in place interfere with Patent Filings. The answer 
is that they can if the timing is right for those interferences and certain 
other issues have not been addressed prior to any public diusclosure in any 
form. But neither you Larry or Jorge seems willing to agree that this is 
true. You also wont say it isnt true meaning you simply refuse to answer the 
question.

> That code does not

Garbage. There is NO Code that you speak of - it simply doesnt exist.

> There is simply no obligation by anyone to do so short of a subpoena.

No as the IETF's Counsel and an Officer of the Court it is his legally 
controlled requirement to act both ethically and within the US Law. We are 
asking a question of law here as to whether the IETF's process violates US 
or Japanese Patent Law in the models cited.

> get them answered.

I have already gotten exactly that

> My ONLY advice to Todd is that he retain his own attorney
> to answer his questions.

Dont need one - Jorge represents me and my IP after its submitted to the 
IETF. Any failing there violates my Attorney Client Reliations and opens 
Wilmer Hale and Jorge to Malpractice Claims. The IETF's Attorney's represent 
the IETF itself which means me as well as all the other IETF member's. 
Refusing to do so will open yet another claim against the IETF.
> for the welfare of the other IETF participants.

What is insulting here about being forced to answer a question?

> I've apologized before when
> I crossed the line in my emails.

If you are talking about when you called me STUPID last week, then this 
answer  of yours is a lie. You apologized for calling me stupid in an 
offlist convo with Jorge and the IETF chair because I put you in a postion 
where he (the Chair) would formally have to notice you if you didnt.

The problem is that the Chair failed to put you on notice for using that 
nasty word at me, it just accepted your apology. So already we have the 
chair acting with others in a different light than it acts with me.

> I wish now that Todd would apologize and

You mean you want my permanent silence whether its voluntary or not... Seems 
pretty abusive to me. It also doesnt answer the questions formally for the 
IETF and the record as to whether IETF processes can interfere with or 
prevent Patent Filing's or not per the terms of the three quesitons.

You still havent answered that question Larry... Neither has Jorge...

> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.4/1566 - Release Date: 7/22/2008 
> 6:00 AM
>
>
>

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:10:13 -0700

Endre - as a reasonable person - and in a reasonable tone, what happens when 
this WG says "We want to ignore Patent Law and claim it doesn't exist nor 
that we are constrained by those Laws that we are not happy with?"

My point in asking is that Patent Law is very simple. And the Patent people 
are pretty clear that US Patent Law requires proper time-clocks be kept when 
IP is published in any form. Likewise that patent filing in Japan is useless 
if there is any prior art in print per the patent offices definitions of 
what prior art means?

Why is it that the IETF is unwilling to acknowledge that its work effects 
patent filing's for IP protection in any number of countries around the 
World?

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Endre Jarraux Walls" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "'TS Glassey'" <[email-masked]>; 
"'Contreras, Jorge'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
"'Ray Pelletier - ISOC'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: Jorge - Answer these question - or face litigation and the 
ethicscommittee of your licensing bar assoc's

> Of

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:41:15 -0700

Hi Larry,
>There is simply no obligation by anyone to do so short of a subpoena.

IETF participants generally have reasoned discussions about technical 
issues.  There is no obligation to answer questions which fall 
outside the process.

>shut up, or that IETF enforce a formal policy to shut him up.

Posting rights can be revoked if a participant is disruptive or 
his/her conduct is unprofessional.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:12:10 -0700

Larry -
let me not be outdone by your pre-emptive actions in apologizing to me off 
list. I will apologize to you and Jorge on the list (Apology extended 
herein) but you still have to answer the questions.

My apology is extended by the way is for being obnoxious in my insisting 
that these questions do need to be formally answered.

In your abusive retort, you have represented that you have no responsibility 
to answer this, but as a officer of the court in fact you do, and that means 
you are intentionally preventing the rule of law into the IETF process which 
is a direct violation of your appointment to the Bar. If you like I can pull 
your copies of the CalBar filings and the actual oath itself if you want.

As to my tone - I never defamed Jorge or you personally. As to Jorge 
himself, how could I possibly defame a Rhodes Scholar like with simple 
words. For the record, I have not called anyone "stupid" here, or otherwise 
defamed them in any way. What I have done is insisted that these questions 
need to be answered here and now.

I also understand that they (my claims) do offend the hell out of you since 
they will stop the IETF from doing things apparently you consider important. 
But hey, if I am wrong about that please correct me here and explain what is 
really going on.

Again my apologies for being offensive about the issue if PATENT PROTECTION, 
but again please answer the questions and document that I was wrong or agree 
that I am right since your commentary is that I was offensive in my posts.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:18:23 -0400

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:38:32 -0400
"Endre Jarraux Walls" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> RE: Larry
> 
> Agreed - clearly it is the failure of the WG chair to control the
> behavior of certain members in these communications, and I'm tired of
> complaining to Harald and seeing nothing done. I've contacted him
> twice with no response, so now I'll just send this to everyone.
> 
I believe Harald is on vacation and rarely, if ever, checking his email.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:29:20 -0700

Todd, I can't speak for anyone else here, but I will accept your apology
only if you please shut up here at IETF. Otherwise, I have no further
response. /Larry

> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:12 PM
> To: [email-masked]; 'Contreras, Jorge'; [email-masked]; 'Ray
> Pelletier - ISOC'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Jorge - Answer these question - or face litigation and
> theethicscommittee of your licensing bar assoc's
> 
> Larry -
> >> intentionally answered any number of other questions rather than the
> ones
> >> I
> >> this also is true so unless you can tell me otherwise... According to
> the
> >> US
> >> please formally here for Ray and the IETF Chair? And especially
> Question
> >> 3
> >> before I have a Judge tell you to answer these same questions in a
> Court
> >> of

---

From: "C.T. Aiken" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:26:16 -0400

Todd,

While I'm not an attorney (yet), hopefully my answers can satisfy you to
some extent. Again, if you want nuanced legal analysis, get a lawyer.

> documents prevent Japanese Patent's from being granted for a Prior Art

I'm afraid Japanese patent law is an area that I simply cannot give you a
competent answer on with any degree of certainty. Like I said in the other
thread, if it is a first to file jurisdiction (without any substantial
modifications), the patent applicant would always win unless the IETF
somehow decided to file a patent in Japan earlier. If it is a first to
discover jurisdiction, as long as you can prove you came up with the idea
first and don't fall afoul of any of the statutory bars, the patent is
yours.

> interact with or proscribe US and foreign patent filings in some instances?

In the U.S., certainly. Publication starts the time clock for the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) statutory bar.

> description of BCP78 ss 3.1 include US and Foreign patents?  YES or NO?:

You're quoting selectively from the BCP. The policy is balancing interests,
not an paean to IP holders.

--
C.T. Aiken

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:54:47 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: C.T. Aiken 
  To: TS Glassey 
  Cc: [email-masked] 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:26 PM
  Subject: Re: Jorge - Answer these question - or face litigation and the ethics committee of your licensing bar assoc's

  Todd,

  While I'm not an attorney (yet), hopefully my answers can satisfy you to some extent. Again, if you want nuanced legal analysis, get a lawyer.

I have one. 

    1)  YES OR NO?:   Under certain circumstances could the publication of IETF documents prevent Japanese Patent's from being granted for a Prior Art violations?  YES or NO?:

  I'm afraid Japanese patent law is an area that I simply cannot give you a competent answer on with any degree of certainty. 

Thanks.
  Like I said in the other thread, if it is a first to file jurisdiction (without any substantial modifications), the patent applicant would always win unless the IETF somehow decided to file a patent in Japan earlier. If it is a first to discover jurisdiction, as long as you can prove you came up with the idea first and don't fall afoul of any of the statutory bars, the patent is yours.

      2)  YES OR NO?:  Does the publication of IETF documents trigger the one year time-clocks on registering materials described in those documents for US patent protection? i.e. could the IETF's publication of documents interact with or proscribe US and foreign patent filings in some instances? YES or NO?:

  In the U.S., certainly. Publication starts the time clock for the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) statutory bar. 
Which was the point. So how many of the Sponsor's have any idea about this? How many of the HR managers around who are writing the checks for the IETF attendance have any idea that their employee's are making formal conveyances of their IP to the IETF. I already have the answer there. 

      3) YES or NO?:  Does the IETF's "respect of other's IP's" per the description of BCP78 ss 3.1 include US and Foreign patents?  YES or NO?:

  You're quoting selectively from the BCP. The policy is balancing interests, not an paean to IP holders. 
Thats not what it says. It says that the IETF respects other's rights. What I asked is what that phrase means. You say those words are hollow and unfonded? That means how much of the rest of the language of the contract is equally unreliable.

What I want to have the IETF formally answer is whether it respects others IP rights including their patent rights. Because again the BCP rules prevent the induction of IP for any standards process where the IP is not fully transfered to the IETF. Without the perfected conveyance event, the UCC says that the IETF's outgoing license is garbage too. 

--
C.T. Aiken

Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.5/1569 - Release Date: 7/23/2008 1:31 PM