On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
<stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im> wrote:
On 6/22/12 10:03 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Strike "actively". It's a loophole and adds no value.
Sure.
I don't know how a "contribution" can be "controlled" by
a patent.
Sure. I misread your earlier note.
Using "related" as the broadest possible term that IMO
may just be supported by BCP79:
BCP79 says "covered".
"If you believe that a patent controlled by your employer
or sponsor is related to your contribution, then you must
disclose that patent."
I'm quite sure that the term "believe" is appropriate. It's not
the Note Well that allows trucks go through, it's BCP79. However,
ignoring my own advice (stick to terminology used in BCP79) I may
settle for "aware of":
"If you are aware of a patent controlled by your employer
or sponsor that is related to your contribution, then you must
disclose that patent."
Why is it limited to employers and sponsors? I might control it myself
directly, or just know that a patent covers it (BCP79, Section 6.1.1).
Keeping it as short as possible, I suggest:
If you are aware that a contribution of yours is covered by
patents, you need to disclose that fact.
Shouldn't that be
s/patents/patents or patent applications/
?
Regards
Marshall
OK, enough wordsmithing from me today...
/psa