Subject: Re: Process vs disclaimers

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:29:19 -0800 (PST)

Hi -

> Date: 4 Nov 2002 18:05:32 -0500
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Process vs disclaimers
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
...
> In the U.S., these disclaimers are utterly meaningless.  If both the
> sender and the receipient are lawyers there might be some effect, since
> I gather that there are long-standing rules about what lawyers do when an
> opposing counsel sends them something by mistake, but for the other 99% of
> us, they're just wasted electrons.
...

My question is what this WG should do about them.

If they're always "utterly meaningless", it'd be nice
if the RFC 2026 update or similar document said so.

If there are jurisdictions where they're not utterly
meaningless, what action must be taken by the WG chair
or other parties to "de-fang" them?

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  SJC-1.3141
 [email-masked]  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg