Subject: RE: Licensing terms conditional on IESG approval?

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:17:30 -0400

I may be mistaken here, and I've done no research on the subject, but doesn't the concept of a "bailee" relate to tangible goods?  I think I recall, from my English Legal History, that an action in "trover" lies for conversion of a bailment, which seems pretty inapplicable to IP rights.  Today we have well-understood doctrines and federal law relating to IP infringement, so I don't see the need to resort to archaic legal concepts and dubious analogies to advance this discussion. -- Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 1:47 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'Pekka Savola'; 'Scott Bradner'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Licensing terms conditional on IESG approval?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "'todd glassey'" <[email-masked]>;
"'Pekka Savola'" <[email-masked]>; "'Scott Bradner'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: Licensing terms conditional on IESG approval?

Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Huh?  What are you talking about?  "License" is a complete
> defense to a claim of "copyright infringement" or "patent
> infringement."  Treating these as entirely separate areas
> of law is like ignoring the role of insanity in a criminal case.

There are two issues here. One is the grant of copyright to the
Internet Society for the contributed document. The second issue relates
to the license which defines how the disclosed methods, etc. can be
used. These are very distinct issues and should be treated as such.

TSG: Bob - NO they are not.

As I read Glassey's comments, it appeared that he wanted to mix
the two issues together. That doesn't make sense.

TSG: Bob - Yes it does. What I said is that the process of conveying the
Copyrights to ISOC is exactly "licensing for publications" the sent in
materials to the ISOC and under that definition this is indeed a core part
of the licensing model. In fact its so core to the licenising model that
without it NOTHING GETS PUBLISHED.  So what we have here is that in this
instance its the ISOC that is being licensed by the copyright application to
the submission.

TSG: By the way - the formal transfer of a license agains IP's for
consideration may in fact construe a contractual relationship and although a
num ber of the lawyers on this list are reticent to go this far I will.

TSG: Also there is another issue here and that is that since ISOC is being
licensed to publish this IP it makes sense that ISOC and the IETF as its
reception agent (Bailee) as as such directly culpable for doing the proper
diligence to make sure that all is what it is purported to be. Otherwise
there is no reasonable possibility (IMHO) that the IETF could skitter around
a damages claim based on what I characterize as its "Smoke and Mirror's"
release process.

Todd

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg