On the leakage of the MIME format of Bill's mail, it is a problem of my side. Sorry. For some reasons when I bounce mails with MIME contain thru majordomo, it tends to screwed up, especially when there is a long list of headers.
Anyway, I already put Bill onto the auto-approve list since he is not on the idn list directly. -James Seng ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Heinze, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 4:31 PM Subject: [idn] Re: > Dear Bill, > > On the off chance that the email to the IETF's IDN list, with your address > in the From field, was not an attempt by you or someone else to proffer > some form of humor, a few comments are in order: > > When making making claims of technical innovation, especially to a > technical body, it helps to use the communications technology > properly. Your note was nearly incoherent because of serious encoding > problems with your posting. Further the web citations your provided were > quite unusable. As well, <http://l2.espacenet.com/> appears to be > inaccessible. > > Nonetheless: > > > At 10:43 PM 1/16/2002 -0800, Heinze, Bill wrote: > >notify you of the publication of World Intellectual Property = > >Organization International Publication No. > > A WIPO publication? How nice. > > When did WIPO start issuing patents? > > > >This patent application generally relates to a system, method, and > > Application? As in, no force of law yet? How interesting. > > > >We believe that many of the technologies being discussed in this = > >mailing > >list infringe one or more of the 213 claims starting at page 87 of the > > 1. It is a bit unusual to refer to a "technology" as infringing. Perhaps > you meant that you believe that some product USING the technology would be > infringing? A pity your meaning is unclear. > > 2. Patent applications usually begin with an impressively inflated number > of claims. For those patents that actually issue, the number of claims > that survive is typically vastly smaller. That makes it difficult even to > guess which portions of your impressive list of claims one should worry about. > > > >Please note that failure to promptly obtain the appropriate = > >authorization may subject you and your organization to liability for > >royalties in the > > You are threatening legal actions against folks in this standards > organizations for doing standards work without paying you a license fee? > > Either you are jesting or, alas, once again at least being impressively > unclear. > > > >William F. Heinze, Esq. > > Esquire? Cute touch, though doesn't it create a challenge for what to use > upon making partner? > > > At any rate, please do feel free to distract our discussion list further, > but perhaps with postings that are more readable in format and clear in > content. > > And in that unfortunate off chance that you were not the originator of the > note sent under your name, to the person who did: tsk. tsk. Why would you > want to alienate this standards organization to Mr. Heinze, by posting such > a bothersome note, so badly formulated? > > d/ > > ---------- > Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 > >
