On 01/05/2016 01:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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. > > Note that this is not a trivial extension. 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. > That really isn't something we can slide in through the back door. In particular, "would benefit", if strictly interpreted, would mean that anyone participating in a patent pool with license redistribution, or possibly even ones with defensive suspension clauses (if that's seen as a benefit) would be on the hook for any patent in the pool, not just the ones they own or contributed to it. MPEG-LA licensors, for instance, would probably like to know what the rule is on that. [Agreed fully with Jorge that this needs to go to the BCP79bis discussion, not the Note Well discussion - Note Well has to summarize / reference the *existing* rules, not what we (IETF mailing list members of the moment) think the rules should be.] -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.