Re: Problem with new Note Well

On 1/23/14 1:56 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
> 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
>    
I generally agree with that, though I think this gets to why I think 
having the "Note Well" state a plain-English, imprecise, overbroad 
summary is the right thing to do: The Note Well text should say, "You 
have to disclose IPR you know about. Not always, but maybe more than you 
think. If you're worried about specifically what, when, who, and how, 
you need to go read these other documents, and once you start 
participating, you've agreed to the specifics of what's in those 
documents. Got it?" Part of the reason that some of us pushed to change 
the current Note Well text was because people were *underdisclosing* 
what they were absolutely required to disclose by the BCP.
I'm really concerned about the amateur lawyering. If you're worried 
about this, go consult an attorney. The IESG consulted with Jorge about 
what's up there now, and though he preferred some additional escape 
clauses, he found the current text acceptable. If a bunch of corporate 
attorneys come out of the woodwork and say that they can't let their 
employees hit the "Acknowledge" button on the registration page, we'll 
revisit the issue I'm sure. But my guess is that you'll find that the 
exception language on the page now is sufficient to make them happy.
> 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
>    
I think you'll find that such a change is likely to (a) produce an 
unmanageable number of disclosures (because "you suspect that IPR 
relates" is a pretty low bar) and (b) that such a rule will cause 
heartburn among a bunch of folks. I'm not saying it's the wrong 
direction, but it's not obvious that it's the right direction either.
pr

> 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