Hi Brian, On 1/4/16, 16:35, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 05/01/2016 11:36, Stephan Wenger wrote: [...] >>If, after community review, the IETF at large decides that an extension of BCP79’s scope is what it wants, then why not put it in the Note Well? > >Rather, I would say, why not put it in BCP 79? It isn't hard - basically it needs >a one paragraph RFC (not counting boilerplate) to do so. > >"Section 6.6 of RFC 3979 (When is a Disclosure Required?) is replaced by the >following text: > > IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with > respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly by or otherwise > benefits the individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or > to IPR that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert." > >I don't like the idea of legislating on such a fundamental question other than >through a BCP. OK. Jorge made a similar point. I guess it’s a matter of taste. I can go either way and have no strong opinion, but I would really like to see the privateering problem addressed during this decade (and you showed a way to do just that, while Jorge mentioned that even 3979bis is an potion--thanks). [...] > >If companies A and B have a private patent cartel (a.k.a. cross-licensing), contributors from company B would >be caught by this extension if aware of a relevant patent owned by company A. A disclosure obligation is triggered for an individual when *the individual* is aware of both a) the patent is owned/controlled/beneficial to the employer/sponsor, and b) patent reads on contribution. Right? I think it’s absolutely fair to expect an individual to incur such a disclosure obligation. After all, he or she needs to be both familiar with a third party patent (owned by the cross-licensor) to make the technical call, and with sufficient detail of the cross-licensing arrangement itself to make the call under b). Looking around in the IETF, I think we would be talking about a very small group of people, all very patent savvy and with legal on speed dial. The remaining vast majority is (probably blissfully in this case) ignorant. >That really isn't something we can slide in through the back door. Agreed. > > Brian >