If not a legal opinion, maybe "common understanding" would still be useful.
As a simple rule I'd suggest to respect any legally binding exclusions
of a given jurisdiction (to apply to all CAs that do business in that
jurisdiction). Does that make sense?
Thanks,
M..D.
On 5/4/2016 8:42 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
Dean,
Based on the advice we've received, I don't believe that would be
useful. The matter is unlikely to be able to be settled by the Forum -
in the event of lawsuit, it will have to be resolved by adjudication.
While individual members and their counsel may have differing opinions
as to the appropriateness of the exclusions, the Forum itself cannot
offer a legal opinion. The possibilities would be to update the Bylaws
or propose a new ballot, and that's a significant enough activity that
it would likely require a separate exploration.
On May 4, 2016 9:55 AM, "Dean Coclin" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ben-I think it may be worthwhile to convene another session of the
current PAG
to come up with a recommendation on how to handle the
discrepancies discussed.
I don't think it benefits the forum or the public to have different
interpretations of exclusion notice validities and hence I would
recommend the
PAG work on this as a final item.
Dean
-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 1:51 PM
To: Dean Coclin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; CABFPub <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] IPR Exclusion notices
On 03/05/16 18:11, Dean Coclin wrote:
> Gerv,
> I think you make my point by using the word, "seems" in front of
both
> conclusions that you draw.
Sorry, I was being British and understating. My point is that it
doesn't seem
that the rules were ambiguous.
> Why force participants to draw inexact conclusions when we can
easily
> fix this with a ballot.
If you want to fix this with a ballot, without saying I support
such a move,
the best ballot would be the most limited - the one which rules on
precisely
the two disclosures which are in question.
> I'm actually surprised that our IPR policy, given past and numerous
> discussions about making all things CA/B Forum public, only says
that
> the exclusion notice has to be provided to the Chair. Am I the only
> one amazed by that? Am I misinterpreting something?
It is a little surprising, but the CAB Forum has been on a journey
towards
greater transparency, and sometimes the consequences of rare
things are
missed.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
