Re: Revision to Note Well

["GTW" <gtw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with those who have stated the problem with the proposed text such as expressed below.

 

Mary has asked a good question that I tried to ask before:  What is the problem we are striving to solve?

 

Is IETF experiencing issues of non-disclosure of IP that our rules indicate should have been disclosed?

 

If so it would be helpful to better understand any such instances in order that we can propose responsive solutions.

 

My experience is that the vast majority of current “problems” related to IP in standards has to do with disagreements over meaning of license assurances made as a part of disclosure.  I am not aware of current problems about “non-disclosure”

 

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President GTW Associates

 

From: Mary Barnes

Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 3:27 PM

To: Brian E Carpenter

Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: Revision to Note Well

 

I also do not believe that this change addresses the concerns that have been raised.  As I said previously, I never totally understood why we needed a new note well summary was even needed.   I believe the previous version was more than adequate and certainly more correct. 

 

Mary.

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 07/02/2014 08:12, Richard Barnes wrote:
> The IESG would like to put forward a revision to the proposed new Note
> Well, after some discussion both on the IETF list [1] and within the IESG.
>
> The revised text can be found on the IESG wiki:
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DraftNoteWellSummary>
>
> The only change is the following:
> OLD: "..., you must disclose that fact"

> NEW: "..., you must disclose that fact, *or not participate in the
> discussion*"

>
> This is intended to reflect that BCP 79's requirements for disclosure apply
> to "Any individual participating in an IETF discussion", as opposed to all
> IETF participants.

"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, or not participate in the discussion."

That is still wrong, because it doesn't distinguish the case of 3rd party
disclosures, which are optional, from 1st party disclosures, which are
mandatory. This would be more accurate, by excluding the 3rd party case:

"If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or

patent applications by you or your employer or sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in the discussion."

If you want to include the third party case, you'd need an extra sentence.

I still *much* prefer the old version. Summarising complex legal rules
is a dangerous game and I'm certain that a clever litigator could
exploit subtle differences between the summary and the full text.

    Brian