(subject changed, since we seem to be in agreement about the
Note Well issues)
--On Saturday, June 23, 2012 00:09 +0200 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I do jot agree with what John says below. Look at Section 6.6
> of RFC 3979, where it talks abou who owns the IPR. In the
> case given below, the participant no longer owns the IPR,
> directly or indirectly. It's owned by company X. The
> participant is, thus, encouraged to file a third-party
> disclosure, but nothing is required.
Ok. Not how I remembered the intent, but that is clearly what
it says. I do think it creates a gaping loophole for a
company/organization that wanted to subvert the rules, but so it
goes.
> That said, I, as John, think none of that matters for this
> brief "sound bite". I think this should say nothing more than
> that if you know about relevant IPR you or your employer have
> to disclose. The "ifs, ands, and buts," and any other
> qualifications should be left for the details part.
yes.
john