ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>