Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Benefits of Cross Owenship - Presentation
- To: "'ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Benefits of Cross Owenship - Presentation
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:04:21 -0400
The language on control is actually in my proposal.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Sent: Mon Apr 12 11:53:25 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Benefits of Cross Owenship - Presentation
You're making the same point you made earlier in an exchange of notes
with Amadeu. If you would come up with something that could be cut and
pasted into notes so that we could write about this bag of property
rights, and what a "cap" might mean for each kind of property right in
the bag, that could be helpful.
In any event, I expect your remark means more to the position that a
cap on something which is less than the whole of that something and
greater than none of that something is useful, than to the positions
of "none" (the Board in Resolution #5) and "all" (Jeff E.'s recently
clarified position), as in either of those two extrema we don't need
to be concerned with what's in the bag, as the bag is either
completely absent, or completely present.