RE: ARMCHAIR LAWYER ALERT (was: Re: Atom's dates may have legal implications... At least one "objective date" should be supported.)

["Bob Wyman" <bob@xxxxxxxx>]

Graham wrote:
>Your choice of subject line makes us sound like we're breaking
> the law in some way. ... avoid this kind of scaremongering.
	You are reading much more into what I wrote then I intended. I
did not say that the law forces us to do anything concerning dates.
Rather, I simply pointed out that *if* we want to have Atom entries
considered as "publications" for the purposes of establishing prior art,
we need to make sure that we've got "objective" dates. It is up to us as
a group to decide if that is or is not important. My personal opinion is
that it should be considered important and that we "should" ensure that
we have an objective date. But, I'm only one person...
	Remember, this was all in response to Tim Bray's statement that
he couldn't see any "utility" in having a "published" date. I was simply
pointing out one very specific bit of utility that could come from such
a date. Perhaps it will be considered to be an "edge case" that need not
be addressed... Nonetheless, it is best that we act in full knowledge of
the consequences of our decisions.

>The IETF's policy is there to avoid..
	What "policy" is this and where is it documented? The last time
a working group chair jumped on me for talking about legal issues
(pointing out a potential patent infringement) that chair was "spoken
to" by folk higher in the IESG and we ended up making extensive
modifications to the IETF IPR RFC's to establish that I (and you...) had
no only the right but also the responsibility to bring up such issues. 
	I am not aware any IETF "policy" that says that we must ignore
*any* of the implications of the protocols we design. Where is this
policy documented? What other implications of our protocols should be
ignored?

		bob wyman