ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Problem with new Note Well

2014-01-23 12:27:57
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.

It's actually much worse than that. This wording would require that not only do
I disclose not only past and present employer/sponsor/personal IPR, but also
IPR third parties have asserted that I happen to be aware of as a result of,
say, a patent dispute. In constrast, the relevant BCPs are clear that while
I'm encouraged to disclose third party IPR I'm aware of, I'm not required to.

The resulting glut of disclosures created by following such a rule would in
turn create serious problems of its own. A lot of people, myself included,
operate under restricitons as to what sort of information about IPR we're
supposed to see. This could easily cross the line.

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.

The issue of how Oracle employees deal with IPR at the IETF hasn't come up for
me - at least not yet. But this is highly problematic for me in other ways,
as noted above.

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 realize that a some people think they would like to make such a change, but
having spent a fair bit of time on patent matters, IMO this is a case of "be
careful what you wish for".

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.

Not sufficient for me. This also needs to be changed so that the
employee/sponsor restrictions set forth in sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 and most
especially 6.1.3 of BCP 79 are included.

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.

I haven't checked Oracle's contract, but the same may be true here as well, and
if so I will have no choice but to do something similar.

                                Ned

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