On 10/5/2012 9:03 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: tglassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
But fixing this process is actually VERY SIMPLE... Just a 'component of
an updated BCP which contractually commits that IETF members and their
sponsors may not engage in submarining' its actually pretty simple to
stop this... you folks just have to want to.
Unless someone has already constructed contracts to do this in some
similar circumstance and time has shown that the contracts work as
intended, I wouldn't assert that it is known to be simple.
Dale -
The contracts are airtight and supported through items like the Federal
and State Courts ruling about the contractual strength of NDA agreements
in rulings like Grail Semi v Mitsubishi. In this case the contract is
the exact opposite of a NDA it is a guaranteed disclosure agreement - a
no secrets here variant so this is in fact a no-brainer to solve.
Yes - the Jury may have screwed up the damage calculation but not the
issue of whether the NDA controlled relationship was enforceable and
that is the key. It is ...
Again - to fix this issue all you have to do is want to...
Todd
Certainly
there are many times in protocol design where conceptually simple
goals prove to be remarkably difficult to achieve in practice. There
is no reason that believe that similar problems don't show up in the
legal field.
That's not to say that this proposal is a bad idea. But let's not
assume that it will take little work to achieve.
Dale
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5810 - Release Date: 10/04/12
--
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.