|
Because the IETF is aware of the conflict and as
such NOTHING that the IETF claims as boiler plate which protects its
relationship to the IP submitted is effectual. The point is that if the
individual's ownership isnt free and clear then the IETF cannot perfect its
ownership of squat whether it claims it does or not.
T
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 5:45
PM
Subject: Re: the usual email disclaimer
nonsense, was LTANS WG Last Call
i think the issue related by todd is a conflict
between a corporate entity's policy and the actions of, presumably, one if its
agents.
i don't see how that is the ietf's problem, or
relevant here.
assuming the ietf policy is clear and publicized,
i.e. reasonable notice is given, submitters can accept it or refrain from
submitting. there is nothing in todd's post that i could take to be a
criticism, constructive or otherwise, of the ietf's policy or it's method
of giving notice to submitters.
it is the submitter's burden to
act consistently with their internal corporate policies, whether they use
email, snail mail or avian datagrams. though it might be an interesting
subject it's outside the scope of this list, imho.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 6:26
PM
Subject: Re: the usual email disclaimer
nonsense, was LTANS WG Last Call
An upfront disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, just a law student
with a great deal of interest in tech. I've been following this exchange
with some interest and decided to look into it. I've found a couple
situations where email boilerplate has legal significance. The best example
that I've come across so far is Angelo,
Gordon & Co., L.P. v. Dycom Indus., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15784
(S.D.N.Y 2006), where an email boilerplate disclaimer was used as evidence
weighing against the finding of a binding contract between the
parties.
You're right about the attorney duty to return mis-sent
documents, but there are many other legal situations where email footers can
be necessary for different reasons ( i.e. to prevent an attorney-client
relationship from being formed over email, statutorily mandated disclaimers
for stockbroker promotions, etc.).
All I can say in this context is
that it seems like the email footer boilerplate would have some sort of
legal effect in the US, but from the lack of precedent on the matter, its
hard to say what and how much effect.
Regards,
C.T.
Aiken
On 21 Jun 2007 21:30:18 -0000, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com>
wrote:
> >That said - Harald - either document that there is
precedent in US Law to
> >set aside the disclaimer statement in the
Tobias' email or back off the
> >commentary ...
>
>
Seems to me it's first incumbent on you to show that disclaimers in
>
e-mail have any effect whatsoever. Can you show any US case
or
> statute law?
>
> My understanding is that when
attorneys are sending each other faxes,
> they put on this sort of
notice because as a matter of professional
> ethics, they're supposed
to return faxes sent to each other in error,
> which happens a fair
amount due to hitting the wrong speed dialing
> button.
>
> But despite asking this question all over the place for many years,
I
> have never found any reason to believe that they mean anything
when
> sent in e-mail, nor that even in a fax that they affect anyone
other
> than another attorney. I sure don't pay any
attention to them.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing
list
> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing
list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing
list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|