On 7/30/09 4:29 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > >> >> That said, I'm in favor of keeping the blue sheets based on principles of >> record retention. But their IPR impact, I believe, is rather limited. > > If A asserts that B said something, and B denies having been present > at the meeting, they could come into play. Similarly for email archives. > Yes. That's why I wrote "limited", and not "non-existent". Stephan > Brian > >> >> Regards, >> Stephan >> >> >> On 7/30/09 4:00 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 2009-07-31 02:25, Pete Resnick wrote: >>>> On 7/30/09 at 3:03 PM +0100, Samuel Weiler wrote: >>>> >>>>> What harms would come from destroying those old records and/or not >>>>> collecting such details in the future? And how widespread is the >>>>> support for destroying them? >>>> Repeating something I just mentioned to Sam in the hallway (and IANAL, >>>> even though I teach some of this stuff to engineers): >>>> >>>> There is some case law that says that if you participate (even >>>> passively) in a standards body in which patent disclosure is required, >>>> and you choose not to disclose your patents, you may lose your rights to >>>> assert the patents. Having a blue sheet with someone's name on it may be >>>> sufficient for a court to find that the person can't assert. I think >>>> that makes the blue sheets worth keeping. >>> I think that we *care* about IPR disclosures and that we *hate* the idea >>> of people observing IETF activity and concealing relevant patents. So having >>> a record of WG attendance is important; having a record of mailing list >>> membership would be the same. We want to make sure that people can't >>> falsely plead ignorance in case of missing IPR disclosures. >>> >>> Indeed, it isn't the IETF itself that would end up in court, but our records >>> can end up in court as evidence that a patent holder did (or did not) >>> participate in a standards discussion and did (or did not) make an >>> appropriate IPR disclosure. >>> >>> That means keeping attendance records for many years - at least for the >>> lifetime of a hypothetical patent. >>> >>> I agree with Alissa that having an explicit privacy policy would be a >>> good idea, but the fact of participation in an open standards process >>> certainly cannot be considered a private matter. Exactly the opposite, >>> in fact. >>> >>> Brian >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf