Re: Problem with new Note Well
2014-01-23 11:59:13
the actual rules are
1/ if you know of any of your IPR in a contribution you make, you must
disclose
2/ if you know of any of your IPR in any contribution from someone else
and you are participating in discussions
that involve that contribution, then you must disclose
3/ if you know of any of your IPR in any contribution from someone else
and you are not participating in discussions
that involve that contribution, then you are requested to disclose
see - its not that hard to say this briefly
Scott
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Is the issue the difference between "any contribution YOU MAKE" and "any
contribution"? E.g. if you happen to hear someone discussing something you
think is covered by patent, you can't say anything, but conversely, if YOU
are making a contribution that's covered by patent then the NDA doesn't apply
(because you have approval to make the contribution and disclosure).
Mike
At 12:25 PM 1/23/2014, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
This new note well is a real problem for me and I can not register without
clicking "I agree" to it. It is not consistent with the BCPs. The problem is
the line that says
. If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or
discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent applications,
you must disclose that fact.
I do not agree to that - I can't given my NDA with my employer does not
allow me to disclose confidential information. Yes, I realize there is some
weasel words near the top that say "Exceptions may apply." but that does not
help me. When you are testifying in court on patents, credibility is
incredibly important. You can not have the lawyers on the other side saying
that you clicked yes I agree to the line above but you did not actually do
what that lines says. You may think this does to matter but the exact topic
of how Cisco employees deal with IPR at the IETF is a topic that I have
testified on in an East Texas court so this really does happen and really
does happen to me. It may happen to you next and you will be much happier if
you say what you mean and mean what you say. This new note well fails that
test.
I realize some people would like to change the IETF policy to be that you do
have to do what that line says but I do not think that is a change the IESG
can make without IETF updating the BCP or at least having IETF consensus on
the change. I would respectfully ask the IESG to change this line to
something that is still brief but that people can agree with it. Simply
adding something like "or not contribute to the discussion on that
contribution" would probably solve this problem for me.
Thank you,
Cullen
I will note that above line is not consistent with Cisco employment
contracts and if we can not resolve this I will be asking Cisco legal to
inform Cisco employees they can not agree with this without violating their
employment agreement.
On Jan 23, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
wrote:
It seems that the shorter one is now being used on the IETF web site:
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Personally, I've never seen significant value in this shorter note well
and while others have been using this new text for the past few meetings,
I've stuck to the old. Now that this is considered the recommended note
well for chairs to use, I guess I'll use it. But, I personally think
accuracy should trump brevity. I think the "must" in that bullet ought
to at least be a should and that adding an "otherwise, one should not
contribute to or participate in any related IETF activities." would add
more value.
Mary.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Bradner, Scott
<sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu> wrote:
you are correct - we (Barry, the IESG & me) discussed this before the IESG
approved this text - they felt that
being brief was more important than being fully accurate (or at least that
is the way I expressed it)
Scott
Scott O Bradner
Senior Technology Consultant
Harvard University Information Technology
Innovation & Architecture
(P) +1 (617) 495 3864
8 Story St, room 5014
Cambridge, MA 02138
On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
<fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has made final edits to the updated Note Well statement, and
it has been officially updated:
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
I have just uploaded the final versions of the Note Well meeting
slides, attached to the bottom of the WG Chairs wiki:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/WikiStart
Please use this new version now, and please remember that as you
prepare slides for the London meeting.
Barry
The new note well says
. If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said,
or discussed in any IETF context) is covered by patents or patent
applications, you must disclose that fact.
Is that true? Or is it missing something along the lines of section y of
BCP 79 such as
or must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities with
respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and personally
knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not disclose.
Thanks, Cullen
|
|