On 2008-08-14 05:10, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:21 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If the IETF removes patent disclosures, I believe the IETF
>> will find itself in the position of evaluating the
>> _correctness_ of patent related claims. This seems like the
>> wrong approach.
>
> Or the authority to request that something be removed. That seems like
> equally bad news.
>
>> One way to mitigate your problem without getting into
>> evaluating correctness or removing disclosures would be to
>> collect all patent disclosures updates on the same page as the
>> original patent disclosure, and sort the entries in reverse
>> calendar order. Then anyone can add note that a disclosure
>> below was filed without authority. That disclosure can be
>> evaluated for correctness the same way that other disclosures
>> can be evaluated. Removing disclosures makes it impossible
>> for IETF participants to evaluate the contents for themselves.
>
> Exactly
>
> It seems to me that any other course of action leads us into rat holes.
>
> I note, fwiw, that a company statement that said "the person who made
> that earlier statement had no authority to do so and we have fired him
> for making the claim" would (i) be very persuasive in the right way,
> (ii) establish the authority of the person making the latter statement,
> (iii) provide the foundation for libel action by the original filer
> against the person or company making the statement if it were not true,
> since the claim that someone had been fired on that basis would clearly
> be harmful to his or her reputation.
>
> Clearly, the IETF would not be party to any of that -- we just post
> statements -- nor would that be the only sort of corrective statement
> that could be made. But it would be effective.
>
I wasn't even aware, during my tenure as chair, that the 'remove' button
existed. The only removals I recall, which may or may not be in the
numbers Simon quoted, were completely bogus and nonsensical disclosures
clearly filed by someone who was just fiddling around on the Web.
I agree that if any real disclosures are "removed" there should be a
complete public record. In fact "removed" is the wrong status - it
should be "rescinded", and if the original disclosure said it was
perpetual, I think the IETF should refuse to rescind it *whatever*
assertions are made about authority. In any case, RFC 3979 makes no
provision for removal or rescission, so we could argue that they are
not allowed; only revision is mentioned by RFC 3979. A revision that
purports to cancel a previous perpetual promise would be an
interesting case for the courts, of course, but not something
for the IETF to take a position on.
I think all of this needs to be checked by counsel.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
