Scott,
Maybe this is a potential rat-hole - I don't know - but what if:
- I'm working as a consultant and attending the IETF
representing myself
- I know of IPR in someone else's contribution
- I'm participating in the discussion
- I'm under an NDA with that company that covers their IPR
Geoff
Presidential Innovation Fellow |
Executive Office of the President | 301.975.6283
On 01/23/2014 10:58 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
2/ if you know of any of your IPR in any contribution from someone else and you are participating in discussions
that involve that contribution, then you must disclose
3/ if you know of any of your IPR in any contribution from someone else and you are not participating in discussions
that involve that contribution, then you are requested to disclose
see - its not that hard to say this briefly
Scott
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is the issue the difference between "any contribution YOU MAKE" and "any contribution"? E.g. if you happen to hear someone discussing something you think is covered by patent, you can't say anything, but conversely, if YOU are making a contribution that's covered by patent then the NDA doesn't apply (because you have approval to make the contribution and disclosure).
Mike
At 12:25 PM 1/23/2014, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
This new note well is a real problem for me and I can not register without clicking "I agree" to it. It is not consistent with the BCPs. The problem is the line that says
. If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you must disclose that fact.
I do not agree to that - I can't given my NDA with my employer does not allow me to disclose confidential information. Yes, I realize there is some weasel words near the top that say "Exceptions may apply." but that does not help me. When you are testifying in court on patents, credibility is incredibly important. You can not have the lawyers on the other side saying that you clicked yes I agree to the line above but you did not actually do what that lines says. You may think this does to matter but the exact topic of how Cisco employees deal with IPR at the IETF is a topic that I have testified on in an East Texas court so this really does happen and really does happen to me. It may happen to you next and you will be much happier if you say what you mean and mean what you say. This new note well fails that test.
I realize some people would like to change the IETF policy to be that you do have to do what that line says but I do not think that is a change the IESG can make without IETF updating the BCP or at least having IETF consensus on the change. I would respectfully ask the IESG to change this line to something that is still brief but that people can agree with it. Simply adding something like "or not contribute to the discussion on that contribution" would probably solve this problem for me.
Thank you,
Cullen
I will note that above line is not consistent with Cisco employment contracts and if we can not resolve this I will be asking Cisco legal to inform Cisco employees they can not agree with this without violating their employment agreement.
On Jan 23, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It seems that the shorter one is now being used on the IETF web site:
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Personally, I've never seen significant value in this shorter note well and while others have been using this new text for the past few meetings, I've stuck to the old. Now that this is considered the recommended note well for chairs to use, I guess I'll use it. But, I personally think accuracy should trump brevity. I think the "must" in that bullet ought to at least be a should and that adding an "otherwise, one should not contribute to or participate in any related IETF activities." would add more value.
Mary.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Bradner, Scott <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
you are correct - we (Barry, the IESG & me) discussed this before the IESG approved this text - they felt that
being brief was more important than being fully accurate (or at least that is the way I expressed it)
Scott
Scott O Bradner
Senior Technology Consultant
Harvard University Information Technology
Innovation & Architecture
(P) +1 (617) 495 3864
8 Story St, room 5014
Cambridge, MA 02138
On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG has made final edits to the updated Note Well statement, and
it has been officially updated:
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
I have just uploaded the final versions of the Note Well meeting
slides, attached to the bottom of the WG Chairs wiki:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/WikiStart
Please use this new version now, and please remember that as you
prepare slides for the London meeting.
Barry
The new note well says
. If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications, you must disclose that fact.
Is that true? Or is it missing something along the lines of section y of BCP 79 such as
or must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities with
respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and personally
knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not disclose.
Thanks, Cullen
|