[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Stupid question: How are "the rights to represent theSponsor" as codified in BCP78 and BCP79...

Typical Technologist Response... But hey - I can do 1..2..3 too.

1) Unfortunately I believe that YOU ARE WRONG. There is no instance of A/C Privilege involved here since YOU PERSONALLY are making a formal declaration as to those matters by participating herein.

The instant you did that you make this matter a public one which involves the legal standing of not just the IETF but all of the participants in a WG and any future relying parties who may be sued by the actual IP Owners in a matter to recover damages against their IP for its unauthorized disclosure, and that's almost funny considering your response.

2) What it is, is a clear liability for ANY other participants who may come to have their contribution damaged by legal issues with another's contribution so ...

3) To prove this to you I suggest we ASK your General Counsel, Paul Dacier, whether he thinks its inside their A/C privilege whether a Public Company in the US lies to both the other participants in the IETF and the SEC on its filings as to whether it actually does review the contracts. Since Paul was rated as one of the 10 top Massachusetts Legal Counsel's he will be pretty quick in reacting too.

I am betting that before the day is over Dacier has a muzzle on you that will blow your mind while they start a formal "legal-Impact" and Liability review of the IETF Participation Process and their liability for your actions within the IETF.

Do you really want to try this?

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- From: <Black_David at emc.com>
To: <tglassey at earthlink.net>
Cc: <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:37 AM
Subject: RE: Stupid question: How are "the rights to represent theSponsor" as codified in BCP78 and BCP79...


Todd:

(1) What EMC's lawyers do wrt my IETF participation is none
of your business.  This is an instance of attorney-
client privilege.
(2) The assertion that IETF would have to prove that EMC's
lawyers have done something is ridiculous.
(3) The assertion that a power of attorney (written legal
document) is or should be involved in submission of
Internet-Drafts to IETF is also ridiculous.

Enough,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david at emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:tglassey at earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:19 PM
To: Black, David; Simon Josefsson
Cc: ipr-wg at ietf.org
Subject: Re: Stupid question: How are "the rights to
represent theSponsor" as codified in BCP78 and BCP79...

David -
Do EMC's lawyers regularly review the participation
requirements in the IETF
too since they clearly effect them as well, and even if they
do, with the
current processes in place today, how would the IETF be able
to prove this?

My point in asking that rhetorically is that I think there
needs to be is a
formal release between the IETF and the WFH sponsors
universally, and this
doesn't exist now. The other problem is that this also
creates a liability
for the Sponsor's that they have been ducking around by the
IETF's claiming
it doesn't exist.

The problem is if the Sponsored has legal power of attorney for the
submission of IP to the IETF then they also carry with that a
liability for
their actions and in fact all the actions in the WG they are part of.



Todd (IAKAL) Glassey

**non Lawyer legal disclaimers apply 


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg