[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Jorge - Answer these question - or face litigation and the ethicscommittee of your licensing bar assoc's
Dear all,
As Jorge keeps reminding everyone, I am not IETF's attorney. But I am an
attorney, and so I am personally disgusted by the behavior of Todd Glassey
toward another attorney on this forum.
There is a code of behavior among attorneys and presumably their clients
that promotes the calm and reasoned discussion of issues. That code does not
allow anyone to insist to anyone else that certain "questions" be answered.
There is simply no obligation by anyone to do so short of a subpoena.
If people have questions they are expected to hire their own attorneys to
get them answered. My ONLY advice to Todd is that he retain his own attorney
to answer his questions.
At some point, IETF needs a policy to shut down some insulting communicators
for the welfare of the other IETF participants. I've apologized before when
I crossed the line in my emails. I wish now that Todd would apologize and
shut up, or that IETF enforce a formal policy to shut him up.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipr-wg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of TS Glassey
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 7:48 AM
> To: Contreras, Jorge; chair at ietf.org; Ray Pelletier - ISOC
> Cc: ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: Jorge - Answer these question - or face litigation and the
> ethicscommittee of your licensing bar assoc's
> Importance: High
>
> Jorge -
>
> I asked you these same questions a number of times, and you have
> intentionally answered any number of other questions rather than the ones
> I
> have asked, and you have done so in a manner that tries to invalidate the
> questions that were asked.
>
> I now have formal proof of my commentary about how the IETF's filing
> process
> prevents IP Patent's from being filed either here in the US or Japan based
> on the works of the IETF being formally included in the definition of
> PRIOR
> ART by the US Patent office and the Japanese Patent office. So unless you
> can disprove this commentary, it will have to stand as the truth.It also
> will formally put the IPR WG and more importantly their sponsor's that the
> IETF's conspiracy and direct actions in trying to make US Patent's
> impossible to protect just blew up in its face...
>
> Here are the questions as they were asked...
>
> 1) YES OR NO?: Under certain circumstances could the publication of
> IETF
> documents prevent Japanese Patent's from being granted for a Prior Art
> violations? YES or NO?:
>
> Here is some good JPO info...
> http://www.epo.org/patents/patent-information/east-
> asian/helpdesk/japan/faq.html
>
> http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/linke.cgi?url=/seido_e/s_gaiyou_e/4houe.htm
>
> 2) YES OR NO?: Does the publication of IETF documents trigger the
> one
> year time-clocks on registering materials described in those documents for
> US patent protection? i.e. could the IETF's publication of documents
> interact with or proscribe US and foreign patent filings in some
> instances?
> YES or NO?:
>
> In re this question, my research at the US PTO is below. It tells me that
> this also is true so unless you can tell me otherwise... According to the
> US
> PTO apparently all Scientific Publications are considered PRIOR ART
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2128.htm .
>
> Also notice the comment at the bottom of the page "about not having to
> ever
> have been read" just submitted to the IETF. That means whether the IETF
> publishes of not doesn't matter. Registering the IP with the IETF Trust
> for
> publication is the act which topples your house of cards. If you need
> more
> see also http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/#whatispriorart for a
> rolling
> layman's commentary on the issue of PRIOR ART.
>
> As long as we are at it. Lets ask another nasty one...
>
> 3) YES or NO?: Does the IETF's "respect of other's IP's" per the
> description of BCP78 ss 3.1 include US and Foreign patents? YES or NO?:
>
> So Jorge - unless you are formally saying the US and Japanese Patent
> Office's websites are wrong, can you please answer the two questions above
> please formally here for Ray and the IETF Chair? And especially Question 3
> before I have a Judge tell you to answer these same questions in a Court
> of
> Law. One which we both know will in fact happen if you don't answer those
> questions formally here.
>
> Jorge - [in my best Pee Wee Herman] I'm Still Waiting.
>
>
> ---
> Personal Disclaimers Apply
>
> TS Glassey
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg