|
Re: Problem with new Note Well
2014-01-24 07:48:57
I'm not quite following the concern. First, I am little surprise that
this would be anything new in a patent case with lawyers asking
questions, seeking facts related to prior art discovery. Second, I
don't see how you (speaking in general, but mostly top IETF Key cogs
and industry market leaders) can escape any awareness. Ignorance is
difficult to claim, however, it can lead to a claim of negligence, and
IMO, this is more the case today. I am more surprise that the employer
is not enforcing their NDA more, especially in regards with IETF
participation which is really wide now with international, and
countries involved with laws are not consistent with the US. But I
suppose your corporation would be in an unique position here given its
long history and presence within the IETF and industry. This is
something you should be talking with your corporate chief council.
Despite whatever the Note Well says, despite the non-binding "I Agree"
click or statement present or not, it is pretty difficult today to
escape awareness. Of course, there are many fine lines here, but that
is even the more reason your corporate legal guys should be advising
you -- first.
BTW, I think the first item on the note well page, can be argued as
the "agreement":
* By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF
processes and policies.
It then gets down to defining what is meant by "participating" and
defining what is meant by "follow."
Does it include the lurkers? Does it include readers, reviewers, but
not actually implementators? etc, and all other similar related
questions about this.
Its difficult to escape awareness if you are involved in the IETF.
--
HLS
On 1/23/2014 12:25 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
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. 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.
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 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.
Thank you,
Cullen
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.
On Jan 23, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
wrote:
It seems that the shorter one is now being used on the IETF web site:
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
On Jan 8, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Personally, I've never seen significant value in this shorter note well and while others have been
using this new text for the past few meetings, I've stuck to the old. Now that this is considered
the recommended note well for chairs to use, I guess I'll use it. But, I personally think accuracy
should trump brevity. I think the "must" in that bullet ought to at least be a should
and that adding an "otherwise, one should not contribute to or participate in any related IETF
activities." would add more value.
Mary.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Bradner, Scott <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
you are correct - we (Barry, the IESG & me) discussed this before the IESG
approved this text - they felt that
being brief was more important than being fully accurate (or at least that is
the way I expressed it)
Scott
Scott O Bradner
Senior Technology Consultant
Harvard University Information Technology
Innovation & Architecture
(P) +1 (617) 495 3864
8 Story St, room 5014
Cambridge, MA 02138
On Jan 8, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
<fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
wrote:
The IESG has made final edits to the updated Note Well statement, and
it has been officially updated:
http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html
I have just uploaded the final versions of the Note Well meeting
slides, attached to the bottom of the WG Chairs wiki:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/wgchairs/wiki/WikiStart
Please use this new version now, and please remember that as you
prepare slides for the London meeting.
Barry
The new note well 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.
Is that true? Or is it missing something along the lines of section y of BCP
79 such as
or must not contribute to or participate in IETF activities with
respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and personally
knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not disclose.
Thanks, Cullen
--
HLS
|
|