From: Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
You are not asked to click "I agree" to any statement. You are asked
to "Acknowledge" that you read it. And the statement says right at
the top:
"This summary is only meant to point you in the right direction, and
does not contain all the details. Exceptions may apply."
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
"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."
Surely we can write a better statement than what Cullen quotes. To
begin with, it contains the word "must". And while the statment is
amplified with "does not contain all the details", can we not provide
a proper pointer to the details?
Not being fully informed about this subject, it seems to me that it
would be far better to say:
"By participating in an IETF discussion, you agree that if you are
aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed
in any IETF context) to that discussion is covered by patents or
patent applications, you may be required to disclose that fact.
The specific requirements are described in BCP 79."
Dale