Re: [ltans] "Proof Source Provider" - new term for use in describing trust chains in document hierarchies

["Remo Tabanelli" <[e-mail]>]

On Mar, 15 Settembre 2009 9:47 pm, Todd Glassey wrote:
> Remo Tabanelli wrote:
>> On Mar, 15 Settembre 2009 7:53 pm, Bill Russell wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Todd & Remo,
>>>
> Remo
> having personally taken a matter to the US Supreme Court (case
> #08-01088) , it aint anywhere as easy as we think it should be.  And to
> reinforce this, I am saying a 100 Page publication for the Supreme Court
> will cost about $10K to publish including the $40/Page typesetting fees
> for the final copy and the building of the various Tables at $100 a page
> or more for the typesetting alone. The figure in the binding cost  and
> cost of submit to the Court ($300 + courier fees), and since I speak
> from first hand experience arguing this is pointless.
>
> That aside, the IETF relies on its research exemption under section 107
> of the DCMA to allow it to talk about anything it likes - and that's the
> problem here since the users of the IETF standards are not legally
> allowed to use that code or IP in the real world just because the IETF
> told them they could reprint the standards-effort paperwork and content.
>
> It's one of the flaws in the logic the IETF puts forward. The IETF's
> license is not about anything other than the publication for the
> standards process and whether the people using those to implement code
> or not realize it the IETF cannot provide a right-to-use status on
> copyrighted work they dont own no matter what. Representing that they
> would or could do so may also be a criminal act of electronic fraud in
> this case in my opinion.

No Todd!
Let me say (friendly) that the flaw is in your side not on the IETF side!

Your flaw is argue that a single phrase in *plain language* or term is a
or can be a copyrigthed work "in se"!

1) As matter of fact you can made a "copyrigthed mark" with a common word
or phrase but this unaffect my freedom or right of using the term (or the
freedom of anyone in this world) except the fact that I cannot made a
product or a company with this name.

2) As matter of fact you can have used a term or phrase in copyrigthted
document or work or implementation but this unaffect my freedom to use the
same term in any other *different* (and... why not...also copyrighted
work).

The word "copy" before "right" have a "magic" sense here.

To be in "violation" I must not only use a single phrase or word.
I must "copy" significant parts of the context of the entire work and
apply it at the same case or implementation.
If *any* of these conditions does not match there is no violation!

That's the law my friend and international agreements have made and
produced similar criteria and laws in my country in your contry and so
on....

And (I repeat to be clear) I will challenge any allegation in any court,
in any country of this world about the sole use of the the term " Proof
Source Provider" or similar.

I and any other person in this world will be free (despite the fact that
the term is used or not used in a copyrigthed work) to use the term 
"Proof Source Provider" and even to use it in another copyrigthed work!

But I want no more discuss this topic because i feel that I'm annoyng the
other folks in the WG

In short if you are cool with your opininion I am cool too with mine :)

Remo Tabanelli

P.S. I have also (me too) a first hand experience here on an Italian court
about the usability of the term "PKI Infrastructure"... (litteraly from
Italian language to English).
Someone (in Italy) was (in a very past time) attempting to affirm/claim a
copyrigth on this!

>
> So in bringing that term fully inside the IETF as a NoteWell
> work-product I was trying to make that pain go away... But hey I get
> your concern so if the IETF isnt worried about that  I totally
> understand and we can just withdraw the offer.
>
> Have a great day,
> Todd Glassey
>>> If the term Proof is in fact copyrighted, I would guess that any legal
>>> rights were lost long ago by failing to enforce it properly, as it is
>>> used
>>> by multiple companies and with multiple products. That notwithstanding,
>>> the emphasis of my email was not on copyrighted terminology, but rather
>>> on
>>> the fact that the term might be confused in usage. Carl's comment is
>>> perhaps the more important though, does this topic even warrant
>>> discussion
>>> as part of this group? I apologize for any confusion I may have
>>> introduced
>>> by my email, as I was merely trying to suggest that the term is
>>> overloaded. I think your email continues to make the point that it is
>>> in
>>> fact not the best for this group to incorporate.
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>> Bill
>>>
>>
>> Bill I fully understand your warning and (at least in part) I agree with
>> you... but this is not what I am worried about.
>>
>> I have not expressed an opinion about the fact that  using the term
>> proposed by Todd is appropriate or not.
>>
>> My opinion was simply about the fact that we (the WG) can or cannot use
>> the proposed term!
>> And clearly I have a very firm opinion about the fact that we can use it
>> and... let me reinforce te concept... IMHO if we want (if we, all the
>> folks here, agree on it) we can use *any* term we like!
>> Disregarding totally the **miserable** "topic" about the pretended
>> "copyrighted" term.
>>
>> "Proof" you said?...
>>
>> In the real life be sure that I will challenge in any court any
>> allegation
>> (to me or any of my interest) about the use of a single english word (or
>> any language) or common phrase/term like "Proof".... if you (or any
>> other)
>> pretend the exclusive use of the term (without the entire document or
>> context of the *really copyrigthed work*) ...
>>
>> I will ack on any copyrigthed work but not (repeat not) on any
>> "decontestualized" term or word included in the copyrigthed work!
>>
>> Pretending the exclusive use of a term or single phrase (without a
>> contex
>> or case specification) is absurd in any *legal system* of this (real)
>> world!
>> This is *not legal* and not fair!
>> And.. yes... maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that (in the case) I
>> will
>> be the winner!
>>
>> Just to explain are you sustaining that because I can read (in many RFC)
>> the following:
>> "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (xxxx)"
>> And, in the same document, terms like "Must" "shall" "Must be" etc.. I
>> cannot freely use it (the same terms in any different document) as I
>> want?
>>
>> As example I can use the term "windows" as I want and where I want.
>>
>> I only must take care of it only (and only if) I talk about a specific
>> O.S. or Product(s).
>>
>> And last (but not least) are we a IETF WG made solely of *individuals*
>> or
>> a lobby of employes of some corporation claiming some vague "wapor IP"
>> on
>> some product/document/implementation?
>>
>> This is what made me sad!
>>
>> Remo Tabanelli
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Remo Tabanelli [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:07 PM
>>> To: Todd Glassey
>>> Cc: Bill Russell; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [ltans] "Proof Source Provider" - new term for use in
>>> describing trust chains in document hierarchies
>>>
>>> On Mar, 15 Settembre 2009 6:21 pm, Todd Glassey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We (Pericore) already use that term to express digitally signed
>>>>> authorizations.
>>>>>
>>>> Bummer - its copyrighted and not currently under any license.
>>>>
>>>>>  Also, Corestreet uses that term in one of their products. I think
>>>>> the
>>>>> term is overloaded and should not be used as you propose.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The term was used by me officially in print 10 years ago and it was
>>>> (c)'d on those works... your general counsel may get a kick out of
>>>> that
>>>> and I can provide those documents to anyone that wants them.
>>>>
>>> Bill & Todd
>>>
>>> Until now... and for more than two years I was silent on this list.
>>> and... today I'm very sad.
>>>
>>> IMHO a discussion in a IETF WG about copyrighted terms (or any other
>>> so
>>> called I.P. "wapor issue") is misplaced here.
>>>
>>> I'm not interested in hearing from anyone of us who was the first that
>>> used a plain english expression like "Proof Source Provider" because
>>> the
>>> first source of these terms is the common language... and I suppose you
>>> can find anyone of these word on a common dictionary!
>>>
>>> IMHO a phrase (in any language) is (or must be) without a specific and
>>> *explained contest* uncopyrightable.
>>> I'ts not realistic pretend to have a copyright on a term (or phrase)
>>> without the accluded (and this can be eventually copyrigthed not the
>>> single term or phrase) document/work.
>>>
>>> So if the WG think that using this terms is useful (IMHO) can decide to
>>> use it, if not we will not use it.
>>>
>>> Simply as that.
>>>
>>> Tank you all folks!
>>>
>>> Remo Tabanelli
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.99/2372 - Release Date:
>> 09/15/09 05:59:00
>>
>>
>