On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/23/14 1:56 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:I generally agree with that, though I think this gets to why I think having the "Note Well" state a plain-English, imprecise, overbroad summary is the right thing to do: The Note Well text should say, "You have to disclose IPR you know about. Not always, but maybe more than you think. If you're worried about specifically what, when, who, and how, you need to go read these other documents, and once you start participating, you've agreed to the specifics of what's in those documents. Got it?" Part of the reason that some of us pushed to change the current Note Well text was because people were *underdisclosing* what they were absolutely required to disclose by the BCP.
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
I'm really concerned about the amateur lawyering. If you're worried about this, go consult an attorney. The IESG consulted with Jorge about what's up there now, and though he preferred some additional escape clauses, he found the current text acceptable. If a bunch of corporate attorneys come out of the woodwork and say that they can't let their employees hit the "Acknowledge" button on the registration page, we'll revisit the issue I'm sure. But my guess is that you'll find that the exception language on the page now is sufficient to make them happy.
I had a quick chat with our legal folks. They understood that the intent of the new Note Well language was to give a heads up that there are rules which are presented elsewhere. They did feel, however, that the second bullet captured that
spirit
less well than the first. Perhaps language that said something like "You are aware that there are patent disclosure requirements" would do that slightly better.
regards,
Ted
Ted
I think you'll find that such a change is likely to (a) produce an unmanageable number of disclosures (because "you suspect that IPR relates" is a pretty low bar) and (b) that such a rule will cause heartburn among a bunch of folks. I'm not saying it's the wrong direction, but it's not obvious that it's the right direction either.
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
pr
On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Pete Resnick<presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
On 1/23/14 11:58 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
the actual rules areNo, 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.
1/ if you know of any of your IPR in a contribution you make, you must disclose
see - its not that hard to say this brieflyReally, 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