Re: Proposed Update to Note Well

On 6.21.2012 19:49 , "Jorge Contreras" <cntreras(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > So I call this a nit.  Still, thinking about a replacement for "own"
> > that 
> > is more layman-friendly than "right to assert" would be a worthwhile
> > exercise
> The word would be "control".
Agreed.  And "control" sounds reasonably straightforward to me.
Stephan



> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 21, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Russ, policy-folks,
> >
> > I support the simplification of the Note Well.
> >
> > Two concerns, one substantial and one nit, with respect to the language
> > proposed.
> >
> > The use of the work "know" in the context of requiring a disclosure is
> > IMO
> > substantially wrong.  It should be "believe".  Two reasons.  The
> > pragmatic
> > one: Positive "knowledge" of a patent covering a technology is not
> > something the IETF can expect from a layman.  The net result of this
> > language could well be that legal departments advise participants to
> > never
> > make disclosures, as they are not patent lawyers (let alone courts of
> > law)
> > that can reasonably make a determination of infringement.  Second, the
> > procedural reason:  Knowledge is not what BCP79 requires.  BCP79
> > requires
> > (in section 6) knowledge of IPR of which the contributor "believes" that
> > it covers, or may cover, the contribution.   According to my parsing of
> > English (and note that I'm not a native speaker), in the sentence
> > proposed, the "know" is attached to "covered" and not to the existence
> > of
> > a patent.  
> >
> > The nit: "you or your employer own".  I believe that "own" is a close
> > enough (and practical enough) approximation of "right to assert", which
> > is
> > required in BCP79.  However, there are scenarios where one does not
> > "own"
> > IPR (in the sense of an assignment), but has the right to assert.  One
> > example would be an exclusive license.  In the light of recent legal
> > maneuvering (i.e. HTC asserting patents that they have borrowed from
> > Google--at least that is my understanding), language closer to BCP79's
> > language may be preferable.  Then again, the motivation of this exercise
> > appears to be to make the Note Well more accessible, and the language as
> > provided is not in contradiction with BCP79; it just leaves out one
> > exotic
> > class of cases.  So I call this a nit.  Still, thinking about a
> > replacement for "own" that is more layman-friendly than "right to
> > assert"
> > would be a worthwhile exercise
> The word would be "control".
>
> > Regards,
> > Stephan
> >
> >
> > On 6.21.2012 15:10 , "IETF Chair" <chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
> >
> > > The IESG has heard many complaints that the Note Well is too complex.
> > > After some discussion with counsel, we propose the following updated
> > > Note
> > > Well for your comment and review.  The below summary would be followed
> > > with a pointer to or text of more details, which will depend upon
> > > whether
> > > it's a meeting slide, on the web site, on the registration page, or on
> > > a
> > > mailing-list greeting.
> > >
> > > On behalf of the IESG,
> > > Russ Housley
> > > IETF Chair
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------
> > >
> > > NOTE WELL
> > >
> > > In summary:
> > >
> > >  By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
> > >
> > >  If you write, say, or discuss anything in the IETF, formally or
> > > informally,
> > >  (all of which we call "a contribution") that you know is covered by a
> > > patent
> > >  or patent application you or your employer own, one of you must
> > > disclose
> > >  that.
> > >
> > >  You understand that meetings might be recorded and broadcast.
> > >
> > > This would be followed with a pointer to or text of more details,
> > > which will depend upon whether it's a meeting slide, on the web site,
> > > on the registration page, or on a mailing-list greeting.