> You won't find a statute defining a bank check. That's
> because it derives from common-law precedent, not from any statute
> that was ever written.
In fact, the combination of the National Banking Act and Federal Reserve
Regulations do, in fact, comprise statutes defining a bank check.
Owen
_
Also, the Canadian province of Quebec has civil law based on French civil law,
not English like the rest of Canada. Considering that nearly half of all major
Canadian corporations have their headquarters there... I don't have to draw
that picture, I think. IIRC, there's no (e.g.) adverse posse
That would be credit, negotiability, etc. Not a right in information.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:29 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to
>> information as such. It kinda has to be
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:50 PM, John Curran wrote:
> If (in an alternate world) IP addresses were to be deemed to be freehold
> property rather
> than simply a specific set of rights, then it is quite likely that they
> would be USG property
> (dependent upon a rather interesting and convoluted se
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to
> information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with --
> and statutes giving property in information aren't really something
> that happens much, except in th
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to
> information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with --
> and statutes giving property in information aren't really something
> that happens much, except in th
On Jun 3, 2015, at 6:25 PM, William Herrin
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:
...
Neat trap! LRSA signers, aren't you glad you signed the LRSA? All your
IP are belong to ARIN.
I'll have to put some thought into this one.
Bill -
I’ll spare you the effort, since (as far as I know) it wouldn’t be ARIN
I don't think you'll find very much in the way of common law rights to
information as such. It kinda has to be a statute to start with --
and statutes giving property in information aren't really something
that happens much, except in the areas you mention -- which were
accorded to Congress to gra
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Winters"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
> It has been interesting. Trying at times, but interesting.
>
>>-Original Message---
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> Never mind, you're not talking copyright.
>
> I would think the issue would be translated into some concrete aspect
> of the situation and what either formal or informal practices have
> been. At best. But I think abstraction as such gets a s
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as
> an "exclusive right to use" in copyright.
Hi Seth,
IP addresses are definitely not copyrights. Or trademarks, patents or
trade secrets. So far as I know, they're not any
Never mind, you're not talking copyright.
I would think the issue would be translated into some concrete aspect
of the situation and what either formal or informal practices have
been. At best. But I think abstraction as such gets a strong
assumption it isn't "owned," in any body of law in the U
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Mike Winters wrote:
> Demonstrable reason: I have been using the addresses for 10 years and now
> ARIN gives them to someone else causing my business to stop working
> unexpectedly.
> Registration or Deed/Title, it is well established that if someone uses your
>
If it's copyright, the judge won't do that. There's no such thing as
an "exclusive right to use" in copyright.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:15 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be indicati
ing at times, but interesting.
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:15 PM
To: Mike Winters
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 201
It has been interesting. Trying at times, but interesting.
>-Original Message-
>From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:15 PM
>To: Mike Winters
>Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List
>Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of right
On Jun 3, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> The point remains. You could have argued that no transfer could happen
> without ARIN approval.
We argued exactly that, and the language to the contrary was removed by
the parties.
An address block is transferred when the registr
Hi Mike,
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Mike Winters wrote:
> This has been dragging on for so long, I forget what it was originally
> about…
Policy "improvements" to facilitate buying addressing in the ARIN
region and transferring them to China.
I concede fault for being one of the guys who t
On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:44 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that
>> Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in that
>> case you may have had the decisio
ry
system, in particular legacy legal rights which remain untested in court.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:34 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights&#x
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> You could have made a motion for standing with the judge and argued that
> Nortel did not have the right to transfer without your approval, and in that
> case you may have had the decision you say you want. Instead you negotiated
> with Microsoft
On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> My recollection is not off and my statement stands. The judge, after
> consulting with counsel for Nortel on the issue, issued a motion for the
> auction to commence in which he found that Nortel had the exclusive right to
> transfer the addresses.
>
> Well, I remember the Microsoft/Nortel sale of all-legacy addresses
allocated to defunct entities being sold in a bankruptcy court with no
mention of ARIN.
> In a court where the judge found that Nortel had the exclusive right to
transfer the addresses before bidding began.
Your recollection i
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be indication
> of an “exclusive right to use” accompanying the number registry.
>
On Jun 3, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> Well, I remember the Microsoft/Nortel sale of all-legacy addresses allocated
> to defunct entities being sold in a bankruptcy court with no mention of ARIN.
> In a court where the judge found that Nortel had the exclusive right to
> transfer the
.
> Indeed ARIN appears to have sought every other avenue in which each
> case could be concluded without a judge having to reach the property question.
That is also incorrect.
Thanks!
/John
Well, I remember the Microsoft/Nortel sale of all-legacy addresses allocated to
defunct entities bein
On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:54 PM, William Herrin
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:
And have miraculously avoided getting it.
It is obvious that such an outcome would be quite welcome.
Again, it is upon others to pursue their particular beliefs if
they feel legal redress is called for.
...
Like when Micro
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:30 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:15 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> ...
>> I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense
>> within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks
>> are documentary intangible property. John
On Jun 3, 2015, at 1:15 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> ...
> I think the closest available framework that makes any kind of sense
> within the history of jurisprudence is that Internet address blocks
> are documentary intangible property. John disagrees. Still, I can't
> help but notice that when ARI
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Mr. Herrin in bringing up tortious interference claims that to be indication
> of an “exclusive right to use” accompanying the number registry.
> Unfortunately, this is not true. It does represent a precedence-based
> presumption about the de
Speaking only as myself and not representing the views of ARIN, the ARIN AC, or
any other person, group, body, structure, vessel, corporation or SuperPAC.
I believe at the heart of the difficulty coming to agreement about what rights
are being transferred is the fact that one side of the debate
On Jun 2, 2015, at 11:48 AM, Mike Burns
mailto:m...@iptrading.com>> wrote:
First a diversion:
I continue to hear RFC2050 used to buttress the continuance of needs testing
today.
Mike -
I do not know if you are speaking of my reference to RFC 2050, but if that’s
the case, I should be
clear an
32 matches
Mail list logo
