[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm (strayed a bit)
- From: David Brownell <email@example.com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:56:24 -0700
> The context is the browser and web user not privy
> to the abstractions of the specification.
Heh ... for some of us, that context is virtually never a
browser. I could suspect you of virulently agreeing
with me; your examples so consistently prove what I'm
saying (even presented as disproofs :) that meaning is
> >I have the feeling Alice must have had when talking to
> >Humpty Dumpty. Sure, go ahead and assert whatever
> >you want. These issues haven't been litigated, and are
> >unresolved (THAT was the original issue) except that
> >Internet standards disagree with what you asserted.
> *Private consortia cannot make law*. You are falling
> off the wall and the king's men can put you together
> again, but perhaps they won't. By choosing to sit
> on the wall, you assumed the risk.
I was making the analogy that _you_ chose the role of
Humpty Dumpty ... :) If there are standards in this area,
they disagree with what you've said. But none of them
are legal standards, and I certainly hope that if any such
standards evolve, they'll respect common sense.
There's one case that may become relevant ... Ford
vs 2600 magazine. Ford doesn't seem to like the fact
that URLs can be redirected. They want control over
at least some uses of the www.ford.com URL ... much
in the same way it's implied that some Microsoft URIs
may be subject to control. (Significant differences in