On 6.21.2012 19:49 , "Jorge Contreras" <cntreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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". Agreed. And "control" sounds reasonably straightforward to me. Stephan > > >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. >>> >>> >> >> >