Re: Software as Goods... - UCC Article 9, def #44

Uh no Harald - the MIBS, the psuedocode models and the
code-snippets are all considered 'goods' under Article 9's
#44 definition,  as is metalanguage as well, and the license
to use them for "any and all uses" is pretty
clearly not limited to reprinting rights, but rather are
rights granted to the world which allow "any and all to
use those IP's for development of anything, without any
compensation to the IP submitter"... which is OK if the
intent is to give the IP away by submitting it to the IETF.
How many of the Sponsors actually have bought into that as
what they are sending people to the IETF for BTW? I bet the
number is near zero with the exception

But hey, I could be wrong, except this is so important an
issue, if I am wrong the IETF should formally document that
by having its counsel represent that the IETF's IP's and
processes as an American Corporate Entity is not controlled
by US Law, but I am betting money that Jorge wont...

Your problem is simple. I demonstrated my point about the
'code' modules and their licensing issues as 'goods', all
you have done is bleated out responses that represent this
is wrong but you have not justified or supported that
whatsoever, so rather than responding more in kind I simply
challange you to refute this formally. 

Otherwise, the WG is on notice that any and all processes it
implements must meet Operational Requirements for its
processes set by US Law at the very least. 

If you are not willing to do that you put the IETF at
risk...

TSG/

-----Original Message-----
>From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <haraldalvestrand.no>
>Sent: May 17, 2007 11:46 AM
>To: todd glassey <tglasseyearthlink.net>
>Cc: ipr-wgietf.org
>Subject: Re: Software as Goods... - UCC Article 9, def
#44
>
>
>
>--On 17. mai 2007 09:41 -0700 todd glassey
<tglasseyearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Harald -
>>
>>>
>>> I can't for the life of me figure out what kind
of "good" you think
>>> RFCs,  or programs that form parts of RFCs, are
associated with.
>>>
>>>                 Harald
>>
>> The "Goods" are devices and appliances
that use the IP internal to the
>> RFC's.  As such the IP per UCC's Article 9's
Definition #44 is right on
>> the money, right Jorge?
>
>So you're talking about goods that are never conveyed to
the IETF, and that 
>the IETF never conveys to anyone. Thanks for clarifying
that this 
>interesting legal theory is irrelevant to the IETF, and
therefore 
>irrelevant to this working group.
>
>                 Harald
>


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

On Thu, 17 May 2007, Todd Glassey wrote:
> Your problem is simple. I demonstrated my point about
the 'code'
> modules and their licensing issues as 'goods', all you
have done is
> bleated out responses that represent this is wrong but
you have not
> justified or supported that whatsoever, so rather than
responding
> more in kind I simply challange you to refute this
formally.

Please read about UCITA and the necessity of states to amend
the UCC
to specifically define software as a good when sold;
Virginia is a
UCITA state, so the UCC specifically does not apply to
software.
Additionally, the precise nature of licenses and software
under them
is confounded by the differing opinions of district courts,
which (to
my knowledge) has yet to be unified.

That said, none of what UCC, UCITA, your state's, virginia's
or the
transnational republic laws state matters at all in the
context of
outbound rights, where we are assuming that the
to-be-written inbound
rights document will handle any necessary legal
complications required
to license IETF appropriately. It is appropriate to bring up
this when
the licensing argreement has been written if it is
deficient, not now.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p250

http://www.donarmstrong.c
om              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Todd Glassey <tglasseyearthlink.net> writes:

> But hey, I could be wrong, except this is so important
an issue, if I
> am wrong the IETF should formally document that by
having its counsel
> represent that the IETF's IP's and processes as an
American Corporate
> Entity is not controlled by US Law, but I am betting
money that Jorge
> wont...

Therein lies what is probably the "root" of the
problem - that IETF is
an American Corporate Entity. The Internet and IETF are
international in
scope, and IETF has members and contributors from many
countries. So is
it right that the Internet standards authority's processes
are subject
the rules of a single (albeit very large) jurisdiction? What
is the
status (in terms of incorporation, IP rights of
contributors,
jurisdiction of processes etc) of other international
technical
standards bodies such as ISO, ITU, CENELEC, ECMA, ETSI etc.,
are they
bound by the rules of a single state?

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Graham Murray wrote:
> Todd Glassey <tglasseyearthlink.net> writes:
>
>   
>> But hey, I could be wrong, except this is so
important an issue, if I
>> am wrong the IETF should formally document that by
having its counsel
>> represent that the IETF's IP's and processes as an
American Corporate
>> Entity is not controlled by US Law, but I am
betting money that Jorge
>> wont...
>>     
>
> Therein lies what is probably the "root" of
the problem - that IETF is
> an American Corporate Entity. The Internet and IETF are
international in
> scope, and IETF has members and contributors from many
countries. So is
> it right that the Internet standards authority's
processes are subject
> the rules of a single (albeit very large) jurisdiction?
What is the
> status (in terms of incorporation, IP rights of
contributors,
> jurisdiction of processes etc) of other international
technical
> standards bodies such as ISO, ITU, CENELEC, ECMA, ETSI
etc., are they
> bound by the rules of a single state?
ITU is an UN organization, and thereby above the law of
*any* country.

I believe all the other ones have a corporate nexus that is
inside a 
single state; ISO's secretariat is in Geneva, and therefore
subject to 
Swiss law, but it's a membership organization where the
members are 
national standards institutes.

I don't think this is a big problem; it's just part of what
we have to 
do in order to work in the real world. And RFCs are still
not "goods" by 
any stretch of *my* imagination.

Harald




_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Harald - until Jorge is willing to publicly state that RFC's
are not goods 
and contain no goods, my commentary stands...

As such I again assert that I believe that RFC's are indeed
'goods' or at 
least controlled in the US by 'goods' laws if they contain
'goods'... that 
said, obviously not all RFC's would qualify, but any that
contained code 
samples would be classifiable as such whether the code was
delivered as a 
plain-text (precompiled) or binary additions one would
think.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <haraldalvestrand.no>
To: "Graham Murray" <grahamgmurray.org.uk>
Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:42 AM
Subject: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re:
Software as Goods... - 
UCC Article 9, def #44)


> Graham Murray wrote:
>> Todd Glassey <tglasseyearthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>> But hey, I could be wrong, except this is so
important an issue, if I
>>> am wrong the IETF should formally document that
by having its counsel
>>> represent that the IETF's IP's and processes as
an American Corporate
>>> Entity is not controlled by US Law, but I am
betting money that Jorge
>>> wont...
>>>
>>
>> Therein lies what is probably the "root"
of the problem - that IETF is
>> an American Corporate Entity. The Internet and IETF
are international in
>> scope, and IETF has members and contributors from
many countries. So is
>> it right that the Internet standards authority's
processes are subject
>> the rules of a single (albeit very large)
jurisdiction? What is the
>> status (in terms of incorporation, IP rights of
contributors,
>> jurisdiction of processes etc) of other
international technical
>> standards bodies such as ISO, ITU, CENELEC, ECMA,
ETSI etc., are they
>> bound by the rules of a single state?
> ITU is an UN organization, and thereby above the law of
*any* country.
>
> I believe all the other ones have a corporate nexus
that is inside a 
> single state; ISO's secretariat is in Geneva, and
therefore subject to 
> Swiss law, but it's a membership organization where the
members are 
> national standards institutes.
>
> I don't think this is a big problem; it's just part of
what we have to do 
> in order to work in the real world. And RFCs are still
not "goods" by any 
> stretch of *my* imagination.
>
> Harald
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:04:48AM +0100,
 Graham Murray <grahamgmurray.org.uk> wrote 
 a message of 22 lines which said:

> Therein lies what is probably the "root" of
the problem - that IETF
> is an American Corporate Entity. The Internet and IETF
are
> international in scope, and IETF has members and
contributors from
> many countries. So is it right that the Internet
standards
> authority's processes are subject the rules of a single
(albeit very
> large) jurisdiction?

I'm afraid yes, in practice. For instance, read:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-subpoena.html

which says:

This procedure deals with subpoenas served in cases brought
in US
courts, because that is the only type the IETF so far has to
deal
with. If the IETF ever has to deal with similar issues in
other
jurisdictions, this document will have to be updated.

> What is the status (in terms of incorporation, IP
rights of
> contributors, jurisdiction of processes etc) of other
international
> technical standards bodies such as ISO, ITU, CENELEC,
ECMA, ETSI
> etc., are they bound by the rules of a single state?

No for the ITU, which is a "treaty organization",
part of the UN
system. Dunno for the others.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Todd,

> Harald - until Jorge is willing to publicly state that
RFC's
> are not goods  and contain no goods, my commentary
stands...

I'm not Jorge, but I'll debunk this whole topic for you.

Article 9 of the UCC does not apply to anything IETF does
in
publishing Internet-Drafts or RFCs, because none of those
publishing activities is within Article 9's scope.

Here's the scope of Article 9, directly from the link in
your message
(http://
www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/article9.htm):

	9-109. SCOPE.

	(a) [General scope of article.]

	Except as otherwise provided in subsections (c) and (d),
this
	article applies to:

	(1) a transaction, regardless of its form, that creates a
security
		interest in personal property or fixtures by contract;

	(2) an agricultural lien;

	(3) a sale of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles,
or
promissory notes;

	(4) a consignment;	

	(5) a security interest arising under Section 2-401,
2-505,
2-711(3),
		 2A-508(5), as provided in Section 9-110; and

	(6) a security interest arising under Section 4-210 or
5-118.

	(b) [Security interest in secured obligation.]

	The application of this article to a security interest in
a
secured
	obligation is not affected by the fact that the obligation
is
itself
	secured by a transaction or interest to which this article
does
not apply.

Subsections (c) and (d) further narrow the scope of article
9.

Items (2), (3) and (4) in the 9-109(a) list do not apply to
the IETF
activities we are discussing.  The remaining items all
involve a
"security interest".

A "security interest" is an interest in property
that is used to
secure (assure) payment (e.g., of a debt) or performance of
an
obligation.

Nothing the IETF does in publishing RFCs or Internet-Drafts
creates
security interests in published copies of those documents. 
Since
we're dealing with outbound rights in this discussion, in
order to
argue otherwise, it's necessary to explain how a security
interest
could attach to the electronic copy of an RFC or
Internet-Draft as
a consequence of downloading that copy, and whether that
security
interest would be enforceable (hint: in order to enforce a
security
interest, one has to have something of value to enforce it
against
- due to the widespread free availability of RFCs and
Internet-Drafts,
electronic copies of them have no economic value).

Please do read at least the scope and applicability
provisions of
laws *before* posting about them.

--David 
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_davidemc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

(offlist)

--On Friday, 18 May, 2007 10:04 +0100 Graham Murray
<grahamgmurray.org.uk> wrote:

> What is the
> status (in terms of incorporation, IP rights of
contributors,
> jurisdiction of processes etc) of other international
technical
> standards bodies such as 

ISO -- yes.  private-sector body, headquartered in
Switzerland
and subject to its rules (but its rules are rather nice for
international associations headquartered there), 

ITU -- No.  International treaty organization and part of
the
UN.  Constrained by the treaty, but not individual/single
national laws,

CENELEC -- As I understand it, an organ of the EU and
logically
subsidiary to some Directorate or another.  Certainly
subject to
national laws if you consider the EU a "nation". 
If not, you
get to sort it out.

ECMA -- more or less like ISO, only less so: a trade
association
headquartered in Switzerland.

ETSI -- I don't know, but I'd lay very good odds that it is
much
like ISO, with a French base.

> are they bound by the rules of a single state?

In general, unless they are formal treaty organizations,
standards bodies have to be based somewhere and tend to be
more
affected by the laws of wherever that is than by  the laws
of
other plances... if only because the judicial authorities in
the
countries in which headquarters are located find it much
easier
to exert jurisdiction.  There are ways to make one
simultaneously bound my multiple jurisdictions, but that
tends
to make things harder in practice, rather than easier.

     john


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

David - thanks for the reply - but I disagree... let me
amplify:

Article 9 does apply to 'personal properties' which meet the
terms of Good's
(i.e. the Intellectual Properties which meet the definition
of 'goods' per
the UCC Article 9 definition of the Term of Art 'goods').

FWIW, The security interest is probably the licensing of the
product and 
'the cost of the vetting output'
of the WG. If this is true, then the formal obligation
created by any 
submission today is "to allow that
property to be vetted inside the IETF whether its published
or not by the 
I-D/RFC Editors or not". Something BTW, that the IETF's
submission 
disclaimer totally ignores. Denying that violates the
submission agreement
IMHO, and probably sets aside the transfer of the IP to the
IETF for lack of 
consideration and breach, but I could be wrong.

---

As a side note - the suspension I suffered from the IETFIETF.ORG
WG would 
also violate this same constraint since in submitting
anything outside of an 
established WG, I am prevented from vetting or responding to
vetting issues 
per that submission by the WG Management.

Sorry, but I think you are wrong.

Todd



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Black_Davidemc.com>
To: <tglasseyearthlink.net>
Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: RE: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re:
Software
as Goods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)


Todd,

> Harald - until Jorge is willing to publicly state that
RFC's
> are not goods  and contain no goods, my commentary
stands...

I'm not Jorge, but I'll debunk this whole topic for you.

Article 9 of the UCC does not apply to anything IETF does
in
publishing Internet-Drafts or RFCs, because none of those
publishing activities is within Article 9's scope.

Here's the scope of Article 9, directly from the link in
your message
(http://
www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/article9.htm):

9-109. SCOPE.

(a) [General scope of article.]

Except as otherwise provided in subsections (c) and (d),
this
article applies to:

(1) a transaction, regardless of its form, that creates a
security
interest in personal property or fixtures by contract;

(2) an agricultural lien;

(3) a sale of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles,
or
promissory notes;

(4) a consignment;

(5) a security interest arising under Section 2-401, 2-505,
2-711(3),
2A-508(5), as provided in Section 9-110; and

(6) a security interest arising under Section 4-210 or
5-118.

(b) [Security interest in secured obligation.]

The application of this article to a security interest in a
secured
obligation is not affected by the fact that the obligation
is
itself
secured by a transaction or interest to which this article
does
not apply.

Subsections (c) and (d) further narrow the scope of article
9.

Items (2), (3) and (4) in the 9-109(a) list do not apply to
the IETF
activities we are discussing.  The remaining items all
involve a
"security interest".

A "security interest" is an interest in property
that is used to
secure (assure) payment (e.g., of a debt) or performance of
an
obligation.

Nothing the IETF does in publishing RFCs or Internet-Drafts
creates
security interests in published copies of those documents. 
Since
we're dealing with outbound rights in this discussion, in
order to
argue otherwise, it's necessary to explain how a security
interest
could attach to the electronic copy of an RFC or
Internet-Draft as
a consequence of downloading that copy, and whether that
security
interest would be enforceable (hint: in order to enforce a
security
interest, one has to have something of value to enforce it
against
- due to the widespread free availability of RFCs and
Internet-Drafts,
electronic copies of them have no economic value).

Please do read at least the scope and applicability
provisions of
laws *before* posting about them.

--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_davidemc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------- 


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg