On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Dale R. Worley wrote: > > From: "Mulligan, Geoff" <geoff.mulligan@xxxxxxxx> > > > > So because I know of IPR that someone else has and is not disclosing > > and because I cannot legally disclose it - I can't continue to > > participate in the discussion doesn't seem right. I'm not the > > holder of the IPR that isn't being disclosed, but I'm penalized. > > That is the rule (it seems). It's hard on you, but the IETF seems to > hold to the principle "You can't participate if you know of > undisclosed IPR claims", presumably so the participant can't secretly > steer the solution to include or exclude the IPR. It's a choice of > who gets inconvenienced, you or the IETF? > > Indeed, if the IETF didn't have this rule, a company with undisclosed > IPR could hire consultants, put them under NDA, and have them advocate > at the IETF to include the IPR in standards. Um ... if you are currently working for the IPR owner as a consultant, it isn't 3rd party IPR ... if one is being paid to advocate related to IPR, it is not the case Geoff outlined.