John, What you said is all true, but obviously it has nothing to do with what you responded to. I said (in effect) that - if one set of lawyers contact another set of lawyers, we may have to take some action and we should have the mechanisms in place to allow that. What that might have to do with someone posting a counter claim in an E-mail message is beyond me... -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:24 AM > To: Eric Gray; Simon Josefsson; Andrew Sullivan > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Removal of IETF patent disclosures? > Importance: High > > > > --On Thursday, August 14, 2008 9:43 AM -0500 Eric Gray > <eric.gray@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Another point to consider is that a very-likely-to-be-valid > > reason for removing an IPR disclosure is if an organization's > > legal representative(s) convince the IETF's legal beagles > > that an IPR disclosure was made innappropriately - such as > > anonymously, or by an explicitly unauthorized person (such > > as a disgruntled ex-employee or a competitor). There must > > be a way to handle this situation. > > On the other hand, a disgruntled ex-employee, a particularly > nasty competitor, or someone who went to law school on Mars > might try to attack a legitimate posting by claiming that an > earlier posting was invalid and asking that it be taken down. > The opportunities for DoS attacks and generally nasty behavior > are rife here and, since IETF doesn't have company members, > making an assessment of who is legitimate or not when there are > conflicting claims could become quite costly in IETF and/or > attorney time or money. > > Regardless of what the IETF does, there are provisions for > getting almost anything removed from someone else's web site, > especially for web sites hosted in the US and, I believe, > Europe. The company involved could find a judge to issue a > court order requiring that material be removed or even, under > DMCA, make a claim that the earlier posting violated copyright > restrictions and issue a "takedown" demand. Presumably the > IETF would have to comply with court orders and would comply > with a DMCA notice that appeared legitimate. And both of those, > especially the first, give us good protection from bogus > requests (or, worse, a flood of such requests) without causing > us unreasonable vunerability to nonsense. > > john > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf