On 05/01/2016 09:36, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > >> On Jan 4, 2016, at 3:21 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Scott, >> >> I think this actually muddies the issue. We've actually got two >> separate disclosure rules. Summarizing them in different >> language (and after reviewing what is in the RFCs), they are: >> >> (1) If you are personally involved with a patent and/or you or >> your organization claim ownership or some other beneficial >> interest in it that you know about (or might reasonably be >> expected to know about), then you are _required_ to disclose. > > unless you do not “participate” in the standards process relating to that IPR > (see RFC 3979 section 6.1.2 - only binding on a person participating in a discussion) > > this is the issue that stalled the previous attempt by the IESG to redo the Note Well > the previous version stated the requirement as you did - an absolute requirement > to disclose if you have knowledge of “your” iPR - a number of people pointed > out that this was not a accurate description of the rules > > also the “benefit” language was trying to help with the “owns” case - it is not just that you > or your organization owns the patent - it also covers the case where you or your organization > has the right to license the patent to others and the case where you or your or your organization > will receive money (or other consideration) from some party who has the right to license the patent to others To be clear, adding a legally precise definition of the "benefits from" case to BCP 79 would, IMHO, be a good idea. But since it is not currently defined there, the proposed Note Well language, IMHO, misrepresents what the BCP says. IANAL, so a view on this from an experienced IPR litigator would be useful. Brian > > >> >> (2) If (1) does not apply but you happen to know about the >> patent claims anyway, you are encouraged to disclose but are >> under no formal requirement to do so. >> >> The second is particularly important to those of us who might >> get a call from someone saying "TrollCo claims it has patent >> rights that cover such-and-such. Do you have an opinion about >> that with regard to either applicability or validity?" Because >> even the asking of questions like that may be covered by NDAs, >> the exact IETF requirements are fairly important. > > yup - I’m well in that boat myself > >> >> As usual, what this suggests to me is that the Note Well should >> avoid saying things that are misleading. > > or leave things out in a way that is misleading > > Scott > >> That, in turn, means >> either sticking to general advice and pointing to the relevant >> documents (in that sense, this attempted revision seems to be a >> step in the right direction) or being very specific and precise. >> The proposed language in this area seems to be neither. >> >> Similarly, >> >> >> >> --On Tuesday, January 05, 2016 08:37 +1300 Brian E Carpenter >> <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 05/01/2016 05:05, John C Klensin wrote: >>> ... >>>> In particular, don't say "By participating with the >>>> IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes and policies" and >>>> then identify only a few of them as if they were the complete >>>> list. >>> >>> I thought about trying to express that in my rewrite, but >>> couldn't see an easy way to cover it. As I repeat from time to >>> time, the hard way to cover it is >>> http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html . Good luck in >>> trying to summarise that for the Note Well. >> >> But that suggests that either the Note Well should be about IPR >> and should say to, possibly adding a sentence there are lots of >> important non-IPR policies of which people need to be aware or, >> difficult or not, it should be comprehensive. Picking one >> handful of policies and ignoring others seems like a recipe for >> trouble unless the boundary or stopping rule is clearly >> identified. As you suggest above, good luck with that >> delineation as well as with the comprehensive summary. >> >> john >> >> >> >> >> --On Monday, January 04, 2016 14:48 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner" >> <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> ps - stated better in RFC 3979 sec 6.6 >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> • If you are aware that any contribution to the IETF is >>>>>> covered by patents or patent applications that are owned >>>>>> by, controlled by, or would benefit you or your sponsor, >>>>>> you must disclose that fact, or not participate in the >>>>>> discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Where does "or would benefit" come from in BCP 79? While I >>>>> agree with the sentiment, I don't think it follows from our >>>>> rules, so I think it must be deleted. >>>> >>>> the concept comes from (for example) RFC 3979 section 6.1.3 >>>> 6.1.3. IPR of Others >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> i.e. the text is trying to deal with the case where you know >>>> of IPR but it is not "yours" >>>> >>>> this seemed to be a clean way to express the condition - just >>>> eliminating the phrase would, imo, make it harder to >>>> understand when disclosure is required - other ways to get >>>> the point across would be helpful >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > . >