Subject: Re: in re "Cisco Sued over Blogger's Posts"

From: Don Armstrong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:23:39 -0700

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Endre Jarraux Walls wrote:
> After reading the article my take is this - the employee will likely be held
> liable for defamation if his words were as acerbic and derisive as the
> lawsuit alleges; but I don't see how they'll be able to hold Cisco liable
> for an employee's blog.

This is a case involving known (or at least strongly suspected) patent
troll-enablers who (in all likelihood) have been a party to
venue-shopping coupled with (at least the perception of) misconduct on
the bench.

The truth being a stalwart defense against libel, and the other
elements required to actually make it actionable libel, bringing up
this case as a possible canard of responsibility on the part of
employers seems a bit far fetched, especially before any decision with
regards to the merits of the case have been reached. [In deed, if one
had actually followed these particular cases, you would have noticed
that the procedural wranglings on the part of the plantifs have become
quite curious.]

And yes, we're now so wildly off topic for this WG, that I'll stop
here.

Don Armstrong

-- 
[Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause".]
I think they misspelled this. Shouldn't it be "Operation Just 'Cause"?
 -- TekPolitik http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59669&cid=5664907

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:10:19 -0800

Actually Don its right on topic... Remember that "hold harmless" agreement I 
wanted to add to the Participation Agreement's, that would have eliminated 
the IETF's liability (or at least gone farther to accomplish that goal). But 
no-one here thought that they personally or their sponsors could be nailed 
over what happens here.

I assure you this not only isnt true but that it will happen sooner or 
later. The question under "that Nailing" is how the IETF and more 
importantly, the sponsor's can protect themselves from the actions of the 
WG's management in this case. I personally don't think with the current 
state of affairs that they can, so this is exactly right on point.

    It demonstrates that:

    a)    That parties participating in the IETF from their corporate email 
accounts make their employers (aka sponsors)  liable for their actions 
therein.

    b)    And that damage claims here because of the cross-state-line 
standards could also include Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as well as Stored 
Communications Act claims as well.

    c)    Finally - that since there is an actual damage to being prevented 
from accessing the vetting of the IETF and the refusal of the IESG/IETF to 
allow an initiative in and to refuse to promite it to a standard when it 
meets those requirements, it seems to my lay mind would open ALL involved to 
damage claims under Tortuous Intrerferrance and most probably RICO Claims as 
well.

As to whether this is true - apparently we are about to see that since the 
matter naming Cisco as a defendant is already in Court.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "C.T. Aiken" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:33:23 -0400

Actually, it appears the reason that Cisco was added as a defendant was
because the plaintiff alleges that either Frankel's defamatory statements
were in the scope of employment, or were knowingly ratified by Cisco itself.
Nothing there coming close to the tenuous connection between financial
sponsors and actual WG activity.

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:10 PM, TS Glassey <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Actually Don its right on topic... Remember that "hold harmless" agreement
> I wanted to add to the Participation Agreement's, that would have eliminated
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Armstrong" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:32:59 -0800

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: C.T. Aiken 
  To: TS Glassey 
  Cc: Don Armstrong ; [email-masked] 
  Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 1:33 PM
  Subject: Re: in re "Cisco Sued over Blogger's Posts"

  Actually, it appears the reason that Cisco was added as a defendant was because the plaintiff alleges that either Frankel's defamatory statements were in the scope of employment, or were knowingly ratified by Cisco itself. Nothing there coming close to the tenuous connection between financial sponsors and actual WG activity.

>From what I have heard so far I would disagree. I think the IETF is a key part of many company's Market Development Effort and as such there is no real way to separate the relationship, especially with the IP being develped having a value. 

Since market standards are valuable and key to infrastructure technologies houses, the binding is done at the hip. 

That said there is probably no way to separate the two. The concept that sponsoring employee's to provide commercial engineering services in furtherance of builfing a war-chest of IP is all that's necessary to beg the quesiton.

Todd

    Actually Don its right on topic... Remember that "hold harmless" agreement I wanted to add to the Participation Agreement's, that would have eliminated the IETF's liability (or at least gone farther to accomplish that goal). But no-one here thought that they personally or their sponsors could be nailed over what happens here.

    I assure you this not only isnt true but that it will happen sooner or later. The question under "that Nailing" is how the IETF and more importantly, the sponsor's can protect themselves from the actions of the WG's management in this case. I personally don't think with the current state of affairs that they can, so this is exactly right on point.

      It demonstrates that:

      a)    That parties participating in the IETF from their corporate email accounts make their employers (aka sponsors)  liable for their actions therein.

      b)    And that damage claims here because of the cross-state-line standards could also include Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as well as Stored Communications Act claims as well.

      c)    Finally - that since there is an actual damage to being prevented from accessing the vetting of the IETF and the refusal of the IESG/IETF to allow an initiative in and to refuse to promite it to a standard when it meets those requirements, it seems to my lay mind would open ALL involved to damage claims under Tortuous Intrerferrance and most probably RICO Claims as well.

    As to whether this is true - apparently we are about to see that since the matter naming Cisco as a defendant is already in Court.

    Todd Glassey

    To: <[email-masked]>

      Don Armstrong

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 8.0.101 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1524 - Release Date: 6/28/2008 7:42 PM
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg