On 11/7/2012 5:33 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
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.
Agreed - but most of them are predatory and not interested in
transparency, something that a GSO must have.
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.
Unfortunately in an open and transparent forum which has multiple legal
parties collaborating on jointly owned and licensed IP this is an issue.
(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 the hiding of IP protections from the community may in fact be a
criminal act. It clearly constitutes an intentional fraud if the party
who has knowledge of the IP is also withholding it because its to their
financial benefit.
This is what needs to be addressed by a revision to 78/79
Stephan
Brian
--
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.