Sent from my iPhone On Jun 21, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Russ, policy-folks, > > I support the simplification of the Note Well. > > Two concerns, one substantial and one nit, with respect to the language > proposed. > > The use of the work "know" in the context of requiring a disclosure is IMO > substantially wrong. It should be "believe". Two reasons. The pragmatic > one: Positive "knowledge" of a patent covering a technology is not > something the IETF can expect from a layman. The net result of this > language could well be that legal departments advise participants to never > make disclosures, as they are not patent lawyers (let alone courts of law) > that can reasonably make a determination of infringement. Second, the > procedural reason: Knowledge is not what BCP79 requires. BCP79 requires > (in section 6) knowledge of IPR of which the contributor "believes" that > it covers, or may cover, the contribution. According to my parsing of > English (and note that I'm not a native speaker), in the sentence > proposed, the "know" is attached to "covered" and not to the existence of > a patent. > > The nit: "you or your employer own". I believe that "own" is a close > enough (and practical enough) approximation of "right to assert", which is > required in BCP79. However, there are scenarios where one does not "own" > IPR (in the sense of an assignment), but has the right to assert. One > example would be an exclusive license. In the light of recent legal > maneuvering (i.e. HTC asserting patents that they have borrowed from > Google--at least that is my understanding), language closer to BCP79's > language may be preferable. Then again, the motivation of this exercise > appears to be to make the Note Well more accessible, and the language as > provided is not in contradiction with BCP79; it just leaves out one exotic > class of cases. So I call this a nit. Still, thinking about a > replacement for "own" that is more layman-friendly than "right to assert" > would be a worthwhile exercise The word would be "control". > > Regards, > Stephan > > > On 6.21.2012 15:10 , "IETF Chair" <chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The IESG has heard many complaints that the Note Well is too complex. >> After some discussion with counsel, we propose the following updated Note >> Well for your comment and review. The below summary would be followed >> with a pointer to or text of more details, which will depend upon whether >> it's a meeting slide, on the web site, on the registration page, or on a >> mailing-list greeting. >> >> On behalf of the IESG, >> Russ Housley >> IETF Chair >> >> -------------------------------------- >> >> NOTE WELL >> >> In summary: >> >> By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes. >> >> If you write, say, or discuss anything in the IETF, formally or >> informally, >> (all of which we call "a contribution") that you know is covered by a >> patent >> or patent application you or your employer own, one of you must >> disclose >> that. >> >> You understand that meetings might be recorded and broadcast. >> >> This would be followed with a pointer to or text of more details, >> which will depend upon whether it's a meeting slide, on the web site, >> on the registration page, or on a mailing-list greeting. >> >> > >