> 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. Quite right. There's also the case of where you're consulting for two entities, one of which has IP they won't let you disclose and the other wants you to do IETF work in an area touched on by that IP. But here both the involvement in the IETF as well as this being an IP matter are really just red herrings. This is a conflict of interest between the two entities you're consulting for, nothing more and nothing less. And once again it sucks to be you, but handling such conflicts of interest is decidedly out of scope. There are certainly other variations, leading to the general observation that the more interests you're involved with and/or representing, the more constrained you're going to be. That's ineluctable. Ned