On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Starting a separate thread, because this is not related to the original complaint about inaccurate new note well text.
> 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
That is a rat-^H^H^H^Hhard problem. Something has to give. You can't simultaneously follow two incompatible sets of rules. If you end up in that situation and can't convince parties to disclose, maybe "participating in the discussion" has to give. Of course this is a specific example of things that can happen in people's lives in other ways, too. Two consulting contracts that have incompatible requirements. Board position and a job that creates a conflict interest for you to be in the board. And so on.
Jari
And it is not just IPR, it is IPR claims that are covered.
I know a lot of IPR claims that are utter hogwash. But if I am working with a company that is defending itself against a lawsuit asserting that claim, their lawyers usually don't want that to be public knowledge until they tell the plaintiff.
The IETF IPR rules were crafted to address one particular IPR problem that doesn't really exist any more because the courts have effectively eliminated any incentive. Anyone who goes to a standards body with the objective of covertly ensuring that the standard necessarily infringes is risking getting their patent invalidated at the very least.
The IPR problems we have at the moment are an industry wide patent war that has broken out between groups of companies with very broad portfolios of claims which come from significant investments in R&D and a large number of non-practicing entities, some of which have attempted claims that are so ridiculous the lawyers behind them are facing civil lawsuits from the FTC.