Re: Hallam-Baker's First Law of Internet Lawyering Was: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

"TS Glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:01:03 -0800

Title: Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

Phillip - 

----- Original Message ----- 

  From: 
  Hallam-Baker, 
  Phillip 
  To: TS Glassey ; dcrocker@xxxxxxxx 
  ; Theodore Tso 
  Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:51 
  AM
  Subject: Hallam-Baker's First Law of 
  Internet Lawyering Was: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" 
  standard

  Well I found it somewhat 
  interesting that despite the fact that I was the only person to co-author a 
  submission to the IPR working group with an actual lawyer I still received 
  comments of the 'amateur lawyering kind' from folk who were not lawyers and 
  whose legalistic opinions had been flat contradicted by those who 
  are.

 it is funny since Michael Baum used 
to refer to you as his IP law resource :-)

  So without more ado:

  First Law of Internet Lawyering: Anyone who accuses another of 
  being insufficiently qualified to state a legal opinion will in the same 
  thread state a legal opinion that they are not qualified to make.

  Second Law of Internet Lawyering: Both opinions will be 
  wrong

  Third Law of Internet Lawyering: It won't matter.

  From: TS Glassey 
  [mailto:tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tue 15/01/2008 1:05 
  PM
To: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx; Theodore Tso
Cc: 
  ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz 
  "experimental" standard

  ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" 
  <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Cc: 
  <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 4:23 PM
Subject: 
  Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" 
  standard

>
>
> Theodore Tso wrote:
>> 
  Actually, to be fair, I don't think this can be laid at the feet 
  of
>> the FSF.  Todd Glassey replied to a message approximately 
  3 months old
>> with some legal reasoning that at best seems highly 
  contorted, and at
>> worst total nonsense.

I love 
  technololgists who claim their view of Law is the right on. Are 
  you
suggesting we should resolve this in a court of law 
  Dave?

>
>
> All of which raises the deeper question of 
  why serious people are
> consuming the ietf mailing list posting 
  responses to it.

Or perhaps a better quesiton is what the actual 
  loading it created since you
labeled it as "consuming" the list's available 
  bandwidth.

>
> d/
>
> 
  --
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg 
  InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
>
> 
  _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing 
  list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf 
  mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf