Post-posting additional thoughts:
Dave Crocker wrote:
2. Rather, the label says something about community consensus. If a
later disclosure alters that consensus, then of course the community
should re-label the thing, to take it off standards track.
Although this should be check with an appropriate attorney, I would expect
that relabeling to Historic might have a variety of uses for an legal actions.
Reversing a patent is only one.
I could imagine something as interesting as class action, among the companies
who were deceived by the non-disclosing party. After all, they will have gone
down the path of strategic planning and implementation, on a basis that the
disclosing party knew to be both incorrect and to its benefit, along with
being against the IETF rules.
I could even imagine that those companies could even demand fees for having
been used as unwitting consultants to the disclosing party's design efforts...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
