On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnick
<presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>wrote:
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.
I had a quick chat with our legal folks. They understood that the intent
of the new Note Well language was to give a heads up that there are rules
which are presented elsewhere. They did feel, however, that the second
bullet captured that
spirit
less well than the first. Perhaps language that said something like "You
are aware that there are patent disclosure requirements" would do that
slightly better.
regards,
Ted
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