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

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 11, 2008, at 10:05 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> 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?
>
An address (for example, 2594 Rebecca Dr., El Sobrante, CA 94806)
is a location identifier.  A land deed is title in some piece of  
physical
real estate.  Addresses are a commonly used location identifier
referenced in deeds, but, not all deeds use addresses.  Indeed, some
use very precise survey coordinates to describe the boundaries of
the property rather than an address.

IP addresses are like lattitude and longitude.  Nobody owns any
particular lattitude or longitude, but, no two objects of matter can
occupy exactly the same lat/long/alt combination at the exact
same time.

> 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.
>
That is an interesting question.  However, our intent here is expressly
not to permit the buying and selling of IP addresses, but, the trading
in the registration of IP addresses.  Definitely, this will be reviewed
by counsel before being implemented as policy.  I believe it has already
been reviewed at least in part.

>
>> 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.

And therefore because it floats, it is made of wood and is, therefore,
a witch.  Burn her.

Owen
(With apologies to Python, M.)