----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Housley" <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "IETF" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:43 PM
Brian:
Jorge has reviewed this text. He says that the current text and this
proposed text are both summaries. Both say that it is important to read
the BCP to get all of the details.
<tp>
Even so, I am surprised that Jorge is ok with this. The new text talks
of something which
"is covered by patents or patent applications"
whereas the RFC talks of
'IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright,
utility model, invention registration, database and data rights
that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights
arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application
therefore, in each case anywhere in the world'
and the two are different.
Quite often now I see a chair calling explicitly for IPR disclosures and
getting a response that the authors know of no patent application, and
while I have no reason to suspect that anyone is trying to game the
system, it can only be a matter of time before someone spots this
loophole and does. There have been a number of strangely late
declarations of IPR in the past few years, which have attracted comment,
but most of which have never seem to be satisfactorily explained which
makes me think we need to be more rigorous, more formal, more
challenging, in this matter, not watering down our words.
Tom Petch
Russ
On Nov 6, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I don't much like the change in approach. I think it will be too easy
> to brush off; the current approach has enough substance that people
> who brush it off put themselves in a very weak position.
>
> The old text was written with legal advice. What does counsel say
> about the new proposal?
>
> Regards
> Brian Carpenter
> Cell phone during IETF85: +1 847 219 0880
>
> On 06/11/2012 15:00, IETF Chair wrote:
>> The IESG is considering a revision to the NOTE WELL text. Please
review and comment.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>>
>> === Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
>>
>> Note Well
>>
>> This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
>> doesn't have all the nuances. The IETF's IPR Policy is set forth in
>> BCP 79; please read it carefully.
>>
>> The brief summary:
>> - By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF
processes.
>> - If you are aware that a contribution of yours (something you
write,
>> say, or discuss in any IETF context) is covered by patents or
patent
>> applications, you need to disclose that fact.
>> - You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
>> publicly archived.
>>
>> For further information: Talk to a chair, ask an Area Director, or
>> review BCP 9 (on the Internet Standards Process), BCP 25 (on the
>> Working Group processes), BCP 78 (on the IETF Trust), and BCP 79 (on
>> Intellectual Property Rights in the IETF).