Great. I can understand the "Encouraged != required". I had understood from previous messages that I would be required.
I'm happy now - well at least about this.
Geoff
Geoff Mulligan | Presidential Innovation Fellow | Executive Office of the President | 301.975.6283
________________________________________
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:31 PM
To: Mulligan, Geoff
Cc: Jari Arkko; IETF WG Chairs; ietf@xxxxxxxx Mailing List
Subject: RE: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well )
> 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.
As I have pointed out several times now, that's incorrect. Section 6.1.3 of
BCP 79 discusses "IPR of Others", and says:
If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose
because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify
the IETF by sending an email message to ietf-ipr@xxxxxxxx. Such a
notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person
realizes the connection.
And the referenced section 6.6 says:
6.6. When is a Disclosure Required?
IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the
individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such
persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.
Encouraged != required.
The wrinkle here - and why I think you're getting some odd answers to your
questions - is that you're not being clear about what role the "someone else"
you're talking about has in the IETF. If the "someone else" is not
participating in the IETF, then there's no problem, other than possibly your
own conscience.
If the "someone else" is participating while meeting the disclosure
requirements, then once again there's no problem since the disclosure has
already been done and there's no need for you to repeat it.
But if they are participating and not disclosing, then there's a big problem,
and in that case it may indeed suck to be you. My advice in such cases would be
to consult an attorney with substantive expertise in IP law as to what your
obligations are.
I do expect such cases to be quite rare though.
Ned