while, in the end, this is true (the "necessarily infringed” requirement) I do
not think it is a good thing
to obsess about at the
disclose-so-the-working-group-can-evaluate-the-technology stage since it is
impossible
to know if any particular IPR will wind up in this catagory until a RFC is
finished - which would negate
the whole reason for the disclosure
maybe we should make that clear (disclose if you suspect that IPR relates not
“is necessarily infringed”)
in the 3979 update - this is what the rule used to be and the language Pete is
focussing on
was added and, apparently, has an undesired side effect
Scott
On Jan 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 1/23/14 11:58 AM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
the actual rules are
1/ if you know of any of your IPR in a contribution you make, you must
disclose
No, that's not true. If you know of any of your own IPR *that is necessarily
infringed* by implementing your contribution, you must disclose. And what it
means to be "necessarily infringed" has some details to it, and it might not
be even implementation that causes the problem. And that's why it says at the
top of the current document that there are exceptions.
see - its not that hard to say this briefly
Really, it is quite hard to state the rules briefly such that it doesn't
include *more* than you are required to do. Your statement did not.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478