[Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy

[WJhonson at aol.com]

Which means of course that a person could claim copyright to the very  
technology underlying Wikipedia, and demand the entire project be taken  down.  
In fact a different mentally ill person could make this claim every  month 
and force the project offline.
 
That's the world you're advocating?  No responsibility on the part of  the 
office to even make the slightest attempt to verify the claim?
 
 
W.J.
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/4/2010 6:08:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
swatjester at gmail.com writes:

You've  identified one of the criticisms of OCILLA/DMCA -- that it can be
easily  abused by copyright holder to keep stuff offline. (This is what the
EFF is  probably getting involved over). However, the proper response to 
that
is  for the alleged infringer to request sanctions against the copyright
holder  for misrepresentation. It's not the Foundation's place to get
involved, nor  the proper use of their resources to second and third-guess
these  decisions. They take the office action, remove whatever it is, and if
the  underlying legal battle gets fought, they can then go and reverse it.  
So
no, there's no obligation to interject ourselves, but more importantly  I
think we DO have an obligation to respect the existing legal system as  well
as protect the entire project from  litigation.