[ppml] Securities Act 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(1)

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at svcolo.com> wrote:
> To argue that an IP address meets that definition requires a stretch of
>  imagination that even lawyers can't handle. Only network engineers are
>  capable of that stretch.

Jo,

Meaning no disrespect, but if that were true we wouldn't need to
remind folks at every turn that "IP addresses aren't property." The
fact is, they look like property and they're used like property. You
say that they're just "location identifiers" but what is a land deed
if not a location identifier?

So far the courts have sided with the position that IP address are not
property but this position is based in no little part on the fact that
that the policy structure makes it impossible to buy or sell IP
addresses in any formal sense. It can't be property unless you can buy
and sell it. Change the rules on sales and the precedent may not hold.


>  I forget the legal term offhand (and I'm not going to waste working day
>  time looking it up) -- something like "intended use".  It's a legal idea
>  widely used by judges to toss out complaints/motions which basically
>  says that the law must have been intended to cover the issue.

That's not quite the way it works in the US, though strict
constructionists often argue that it should be. There's another
interesting function of US common law whose legal term I don't recall,
but it goes something like this: if it looks like a duck and it quacks
like a duck, its a duck.

I don't think address assignments in the proposed transfer policy look
like securities, but they look close enough that Michael's concern is
not unreasonable.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004