On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Shouldn't that be s/patents/patents or patent applications/ ? Regards Marshall > > OK, enough wordsmithing from me today... > > /psa