while, in the end, this is true (the "necessarily infringed” requirement) I do not think it is a good thing to obsess about at the disclose-so-the-working-group-can-evaluate-the-technology stage since it is impossible to know if any particular IPR will wind up in this catagory until a RFC is finished - which would negate the whole reason for the disclosure maybe we should make that clear (disclose if you suspect that IPR relates not “is necessarily infringed”) in the 3979 update - this is what the rule used to be and the language Pete is focussing on was added and, apparently, has an undesired side effect Scott On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1/23/14 11:58 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote: >> the actual rules are >> 1/ if you know of any of your IPR in a contribution you make, you must disclose >> > > No, that's not true. If you know of any of your own IPR *that is necessarily infringed* by implementing your contribution, you must disclose. And what it means to be "necessarily infringed" has some details to it, and it might not be even implementation that causes the problem. And that's why it says at the top of the current document that there are exceptions. > >> see - its not that hard to say this briefly > > Really, it is quite hard to state the rules briefly such that it doesn't include *more* than you are required to do. Your statement did not. > > pr > > -- > Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 >