RE: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software asGoods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)

Todd,

Packaged software that's sold to people, or standards
published in book
form, should probably be treated as "goods" under
UCC Art. 2 (Sale of
Goods) and, presumably Art. 9 (Security Interests). 
However, I'm not
sure I understand the relevance of Article 9 to the IETF or
this
discussion.  For what it's worth, I have never heard of a
technical
standard, per se, absent its sale on media (magnetic or
print), being
treated as a "good" under the UCC.  I'm happy to
research this issue
further if the Chairs feel it's relevant.

Jorge


-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:tglasseyearthlink.net] 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:01 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand; Graham Murray
Cc: ipr-wgietf.org
Subject: Re: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re:
Software
asGoods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)

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

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

Opensource uses invalidate that, dont they?

...and what we are talking about is the use of something
like a 
code-inclusion, and in the instance of a MIB for instance,
this is something 
that qualifies I think as software goods under either
article 2's 
definition.

As to what this has to do with, if the IETF is constrained
by US laws then 
we have to deal with the issues of the conveyance model so
it reliably meets 
the requirements in this country for conveying IP and also
meets the minimum 
standards of those entities we want to rely on it. Both here
and in the rest 
of the world.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreraswilmerhale.com>
To: "todd glassey" <tglasseyearthlink.net>; "Harald Alvestrand" 
<haraldalvestrand.no>; "Graham Murray"
<grahamgmurray.org.uk>
Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:51 AM
Subject: RE: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re:
Software 
asGoods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)


Todd,

Packaged software that's sold to people, or standards
published in book
form, should probably be treated as "goods" under
UCC Art. 2 (Sale of
Goods) and, presumably Art. 9 (Security Interests). 
However, I'm not
sure I understand the relevance of Article 9 to the IETF or
this
discussion.  For what it's worth, I have never heard of a
technical
standard, per se, absent its sale on media (magnetic or
print), being
treated as a "good" under the UCC.  I'm happy to
research this issue
further if the Chairs feel it's relevant.

Jorge


-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:tglasseyearthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:01 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand; Graham Murray
Cc: ipr-wgietf.org
Subject: Re: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re:
Software
asGoods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)

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 


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

Counsel -

FYI - check out Chief Magistrate Paul Grimm's ruling on May
4th from the 
Maryland District Court - he used a case to allow him to do
what I have been 
trying to get the Court's to do for the last five years, and
that is define 
a set of terms and metrics for the admissibility of Digital
Evidence into 
the US Federal District Court's which is where any copyright
or IP issues 
would be heard in regards to the IETF's operations.

As such any electronic submission and conveyance process
must meet those 
standards as defined in the Judge's ruling 
http
://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/Lorraine%20v.%2
0Markel%20-%20ESIADMISSIBILITY%20OPINION.pdf

We all know this is not an appellate ruling but I am betting
money - and a 
lot of it as a matter of fact, that the Circuit Court's will
all embrace 
this quickly as a local rule until the District Court Rules
Committee can 
formally act to enact this as a Court-Wide requirement.

In the mean time the issues of any Digital Evidence system
are as follows:

Relevance; F.R.E. 401
Authentication; F.R.E. 901
Hearsay (if offered for truth) F.R.E 801
Original or Duplicate F.R.E. 1001-1008
Probative Value Outweighed by Prejudicial Value or F.R.E.
403

So maybe we should model how the IETF's participation,
submission, and 
release mechanisms meet these five key tests now that the
Judge has set the 
bar-height as it were...

More commentary inline below:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreraswilmerhale.com>
To: "todd glassey" <tglasseyearthlink.net>; "Harald Alvestrand" 
<haraldalvestrand.no>; "Graham Murray"
<grahamgmurray.org.uk>
Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:51 AM
Subject: RE: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re:
Software 
asGoods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)


Todd,

Packaged software that's sold to people, or standards
published in book
form, should probably be treated as "goods" under
UCC Art. 2 (Sale of
Goods) and, presumably Art. 9 (Security Interests).


TSG responds: the key issue I think is the use of the term
Technical 
Standard which is a much more narrower scope than what the
IETF's use 
license is setting up. But the issues of the conveyance
model are also 
important especially in a commercial or

However, I'm not
sure I understand the relevance of Article 9 to the IETF or
this
discussion.  For what it's worth, I have never heard of a
technical
standard, per se, absent its sale on media (magnetic or
print), being
treated as a "good" under the UCC.  I'm happy to
research this issue
further if the Chairs feel it's relevant.

TSG Responds: the Code inclusions are that 'good' as
described previously. 
Not the standard itself, but the RFC's contain more than the
'actual 
standard' which is a mechanical description of the 'thing'
being 
standardized. When there are code-snippets or MIB's
included, and those can 
be compiled and installed into end-user systems directly,
all bets are off, 
and the standard then contains a specific good that is
usable and is 
controlled under the Article 2/Article 9 issue... Likewise,
the processes 
for conveyance of those submittals must also meet the new
Federal 
requirement's for admissibility too one would think, eh?

Jorge


-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:tglasseyearthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:01 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand; Graham Murray
Cc: ipr-wgietf.org
Subject: Re: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re:
Software
asGoods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)

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 


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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <tglasseyearthlink.net>
To: "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreraswilmerhale.com>; "Harald Alvestrand" 
<haraldalvestrand.no>; "Graham Murray"
<grahamgmurray.org.uk>
Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re:
Software 
asGoods...- UCC Article 9, def #44)


> Counsel -
>
> FYI - check out Chief Magistrate Paul Grimm's ruling on
May 4th from the 
> Maryland District Court - he used a case to allow him
to do what I have 
> been trying to get the Court's to do for the last five
years, and that is 
> define a set of terms and metrics for the admissibility
of Digital 
> Evidence into the US Federal District Court's which is
where any copyright 
> or IP issues would be heard in regards to the IETF's
operations.
>
> As such any electronic submission and conveyance
process must meet those 
> standards as defined in the Judge's ruling 
> http
://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/Lorraine%20v.%2
0Markel%20-%20ESIADMISSIBILITY%20OPINION.pdf
>
> We all know this is not an appellate ruling but I am
betting money - and a 
> lot of it as a matter of fact, that the Circuit Court's
will all embrace 
> this quickly as a local rule until the District Court
Rules Committee can 
> formally act to enact this as a Court-Wide
requirement.
>
> In the mean time the issues of any Digital Evidence
system are as follows:
>
> Relevance; F.R.E. 401
> Authentication; F.R.E. 901
> Hearsay (if offered for truth) F.R.E 801
> Original or Duplicate F.R.E. 1001-1008
> Probative Value Outweighed by Prejudicial Value or
F.R.E. 403
>
> So maybe we should model how the IETF's participation,
submission, and 
> release mechanisms meet these five key tests now that
the Judge has set 
> the bar-height as it were...
>
> More commentary inline below:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Contreras, Jorge"
<Jorge.Contreraswilmerhale.com>
> To: "todd glassey" <tglasseyearthlink.net>; "Harald Alvestrand" 
> <haraldalvestrand.no>; "Graham
Murray" <grahamgmurray.org.uk>
> Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:51 AM
> Subject: RE: Form of incorporation of organizations
(Re: Software 
> asGoods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)
>
>
> Todd,
>
> Packaged software that's sold to people, or standards
published in book
> form, should probably be treated as "goods"
under UCC Art. 2 (Sale of
> Goods) and, presumably Art. 9 (Security Interests).
>
>
> TSG responds: the key issue I think is the use of the
term Technical 
> Standard which is a much more narrower scope than what
the IETF's use 
> license is setting up. But the issues of the conveyance
model are also 
> important especially in a commercial or

Private implementation.

>
> However, I'm not
> sure I understand the relevance of Article 9 to the
IETF or this
> discussion.  For what it's worth, I have never heard of
a technical
> standard, per se, absent its sale on media (magnetic or
print), being
> treated as a "good" under the UCC.  I'm happy
to research this issue
> further if the Chairs feel it's relevant.
>
> TSG Responds: the Code inclusions are that 'good' as
described previously. 
> Not the standard itself, but the RFC's contain more
than the 'actual 
> standard' which is a mechanical description of the
'thing' being 
> standardized. When there are code-snippets or MIB's
included, and those 
> can be compiled and installed into end-user systems
directly, all bets are 
> off, and the standard then contains a specific good
that is usable and is 
> controlled under the Article 2/Article 9 issue...
Likewise, the processes 
> for conveyance of those submittals must also meet the
new Federal 
> requirement's for admissibility too one would think,
eh?
>
> Jorge
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd glassey [mailto:tglasseyearthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:01 AM
> To: Harald Alvestrand; Graham Murray
> Cc: ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: Re: Form of incorporation of organizations
(Re: Software
> asGoods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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