Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2008-08-14 05:10, John C Klensin wrote: >> >> --On Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:21 PM +0200 Simon Josefsson >> <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. Some of the disclosures that are now removed were certainly not bogus. For example, the patent license given in #833 was important input to a lengthy discussion relatively recently. > 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. That would be useful. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf