On 6/22/12 10:03 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > Strike "actively". It's a loophole and adds no value. Sure. > I don't know how a "contribution" can be "controlled" by > a patent. Sure. I misread your earlier note. > Using "related" as the broadest possible term that IMO > may just be supported by BCP79: BCP79 says "covered". > "If you believe that a patent controlled by your employer > or sponsor is related to your contribution, then you must > disclose that patent." > > I'm quite sure that the term "believe" is appropriate. It's not > the Note Well that allows trucks go through, it's BCP79. However, > ignoring my own advice (stick to terminology used in BCP79) I may > settle for "aware of": > > "If you are aware of a patent controlled by your employer > or sponsor that is related to your contribution, then you must > disclose that patent." Why is it limited to employers and sponsors? I might control it myself directly, or just know that a patent covers it (BCP79, Section 6.1.1). Keeping it as short as possible, I suggest: If you are aware that a contribution of yours is covered by patents, you need to disclose that fact. OK, enough wordsmithing from me today... /psa