On 11.7.2012 07:10 , "Brian E Carpenter"
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 07/11/2012 01:23, Randy Bush wrote:
[ my last post on this ]
But my objective in the question what might be "late" was whether IETF
may have defined "late" somewhere
we are [supposed to be] professionals of *integrity*. discussion of how
far the submarine should be allowed to run before it surfaces are the
primrose path. as professionals of integrity, we should not participate
in submarine exercises.
[...]
On the other hand, there is sometimes the happy outcome that the
corporate IPR people decide that the contribution does not infringe
the essential claims, so no disclosure is needed.
In my experience, it happens very often that a corporate IPR department
finds that a disclosure is not needed. It is, in most cases, not to the
advantage of a rightholder to disclose a patent unless he is undeniably
obligated to do so, with the result that IPR departments typically do
their homework, claim charts and whatnot. (That also takes time.) OTOH,
it is, in many cases, to the advantage of a participant to request a
patent to be disclosed, be it because of IETF-integrity, essential patent
bonuses, or other motivations.
Stephan
Brian