On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:37:29PM -0700, joshua sahala wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:20 PM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:[cut] > > Your subject line (IP addresses are now assets) could mislead folks, > [cut] > ianal, but the treatment of ip addresses by the bankruptcy court would > tend to agree with the definition of an asset from webster's new world > law dictionary (http://law.yourdictionary.com/asset): > > Any property or right that is owned by a person or entity and has > monetary value. See also liability. > > All of the property of a person or entity or its total value; > entries on a balance sheet listing such property. > > intangible asset > An asset that is not a physical thing and only evidenced by a > written document. > > > the addresses are being exchanged for money, in order to pay a > debt...how is this not a sale of an asset?
I guess I'm in the same minority in that I agree with you. Note that "Asset" !== "Property". The IP addresses in question are unquestionably "Assets" (albeit "Restricted assets" or hard-to-value assets), but not so evidently "Property". So, the original subject line "IP addresses are now assets" seems accurate; it does not say "IP addresses are now property". Conflation of the two terms is in the mind of the reader, and perhaps that's what John Curran was seeking to clarify. -- Henry Yen Aegis Information Systems, Inc. Senior Systems Programmer Hicksville, New York