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

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mark Pilgrim
| Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 8:58 PM
| To: bobwyman@xxxxxxxxxx
| Cc: Paul Hoffman / IMC; Atom WG
| Subject: Re: ARMCHAIR LAWYER ALERT (was: Re: Atom's dates may have legal
| implications... At least one "objective date" should be supported.)

| I work with people who have ten times this number.  They still go to
| lawyers for legal advice.
|
| --
| Cheers,
| -Mark

Going to lawyers for legal advice is good advice, but not appropriate for
this list as I'd certainly think it would go without saying.  It's
theoretically possible I way overestimate the intelligence of some-a you
all, but I certainly doubt it.

Leaving lawyers to make tech decisions for tech people is pretty stupid
advice, although an unfortunate necessity at times (for example, when DOJ
has gotten involved).  Basing an opinion strictly on the raw quantity of
patents somebody has is awfully weak reasoning, but I'd expect no more nor
less from an IBM'r working in Software Group or whatever your *nix group
calls itself these days.

~~

Tired, and thaz an excuse for a poorly worded post:  Go ahead and create
your spec without ANY regard for how it might be used if you want.  It's
utility will be what it is, not what you fantasize.  If it CAN'T be used for
common-sense applications, in the legal and otherwise sense, then it won't
be.

No amount of capability to jam a spec down somebody's or everybody's throat
is likely to change these facts and prognostications, afaik.

Yeah, cheers and all that...)-;