Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle

At 11:44 AM 2001-01-02 -0500, Marti wrote:
>All good points - however I wasn't thinking about making a 'ruling' on what
>was an undue burden - just recognizing in someway that such things are
>likely to exist.  We could otherwise spend an awful lot of time and effort
>trying to pin down things that are really beyond our control anyway.
>Marti
>

AG::

Yes, but I am not keen on creating large lumped labels at this time.  I
want to
know _how_ it is believed to cost too much, or how it is believed to degrade
intellectual property rights management to an unacceptable degree.  Consider
the cost claims concerning the Olympics web site.  Were those real?

The reason that I want the mechanism (by which it is claimed that some
legitimate interest is injured) described and captured into a body of writing
where we can find it again is that it is _not_ out of our control.  The
allegation is that our rule is forcing some uneconomic practice or
violation of
someone else's rights.  This claim is subject to review and confirmation or
denial, but not without some specifics.

In the case of intellectual property, we really need those claims defended
with
details, because the claim may be exaggerated and not supportable.  The claim
is not supportable if there are readily achievable ways to protect the valid
interests on both sides.  We don't have to choose.  But it takes digging into
the mechanisms to find this out.

Al

Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 13:21:56 UTC