(subject changed, since we seem to be in agreement about the
Note Well issues)
--On Saturday, June 23, 2012 00:09 +0200 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
I do jot agree with what John says below. Look at Section 6.6
of RFC 3979, where it talks abou who owns the IPR. In the
case given below, the participant no longer owns the IPR,
directly or indirectly. It's owned by company X. The
participant is, thus, encouraged to file a third-party
disclosure, but nothing is required.
Ok. Not how I remembered the intent, but that is clearly what
it says. I do think it creates a gaping loophole for a
company/organization that wanted to subvert the rules, but so it
goes.
That said, I, as John, think none of that matters for this
brief "sound bite". I think this should say nothing more than
that if you know about relevant IPR you or your employer have
to disclose. The "ifs, ands, and buts," and any other
qualifications should be left for the details part.
yes.
john