On 6/22/12 11:07 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 6.22.2012 09:31 , "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 6/22/12 10:03 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>>
>>> "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).
>
> Section 6.1.1 requires the IPR being controlled by employer or sponsor.
That's not how I read 6.1.1.
Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting
the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes Covers
or may ultimately Cover his or her Contribution....
Nothing there about employers or sponsors.
...or which the
Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or
sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such
Contribution, ....
That's one branch in the decision tree, but not the only one.
...must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section
6.
> The part you are referring to is gated by section 6.6, which is where
> The employer or sponsor control is required.
Not as I see it ("by the individual"):
IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the
individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such
persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.
> That leaves us with
>
> 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."
It needs to say "you or..."
> "Disclose that *patent*" instead of "disclose that *fact*", because we
> Do not want to see disclosures suing "I'm aware of IPR covering my
> Contribution".
Right. :)
> My final word for today as well; see you all tomorrow on this fine list :-)
Mine too. I hope. :)
/psa