<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
Thereby hangs a tail... the space isn't "owned" by anyone. IP</div>
addresses aren't an asset (and if they suddenly become one a lot of<br>
peoples accounting records need to be restated to reflect this) and as<br>
such can't be owned. If I had camped on <a href="http://1.0.0.0/8" target="_blank">1.0.0.0/8</a> for the last 20<br>
years and "got away" with using it would I own it?<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div>Now, thats where things get interesting. Is legacy space an asset, The sale of legacy address space to microsoft by nortel would seem to indicate there IS an asset there. I'd prefer if that wasn't the case but there is some precedent there... </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I believe that it is more representative of the fact that the court utterly failed to understand the nature of the internet and how address registrations work.</div><div><br></div><div>The registration is what was actually transferred and the registration(s) may actually be an asset to some extent, but, only to the extent that the RIR can or will cooperate in the transfer.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>