Thanks for clarifying, given the lack of details I jumped to conclusions. Still, I don't see how anonymous contributions were involved?
/Simon Stephan Wenger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Simon, > the case I was thinking about was this one: > http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070323094639 > 964 > > Stephan > > > On 3/25/08 3:33 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >>>> [...] >>>>> If we learned that the anonymous posting actually came from person was >>>>> affiliated with the IPR holder, then there is legal recourse. My >>>>> point is that by avoiding anonymous posting, the likelihood of such >>>>> abuse is significantly reduced. >>>> >>>> I think the point would be valid if there were significant abuse today. >>>> >>> >>> I don't know what would qualify as significant here, but there has been at >>> least one rather high profile antitrust case in the recent history >>> (semiconductor industry), in which a situation similar to the one we are >>> discussing has played a role. >> >> If the account at >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits >> >> is to be trusted, I can't find many similarities with the situation we >> are discussing here. Could you clarify how anonymous contributions >> played a role in your example? >> >> /Simon >> _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
