On 11.7.2012 07:10 , "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 07/11/2012 01:23, Randy Bush wrote: >> [ my last post on this ] >> >>> But my objective in the question what might be "late" was whether IETF >>> may have defined "late" somewhere >> >> we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. discussion of how >> far the submarine should be allowed to run before it surfaces are the >> primrose path. as professionals of integrity, we should not participate >> in submarine exercises. > >[...] >On the other hand, there is sometimes the happy outcome that the >corporate IPR people decide that the contribution does not infringe >the essential claims, so no disclosure is needed. In my experience, it happens very often that a corporate IPR department finds that a disclosure is not needed. It is, in most cases, not to the advantage of a rightholder to disclose a patent unless he is undeniably obligated to do so, with the result that IPR departments typically do their homework, claim charts and whatnot. (That also takes time.) OTOH, it is, in many cases, to the advantage of a participant to request a patent to be disclosed, be it because of IETF-integrity, essential patent bonuses, or other motivations. Stephan > > Brian >