Re: Problem with new Note Well
2014-01-27 09:22:52
Scott,
Maybe this is a potential rat-hole - I don't know - but what if:
- I'm working as a consultant and attending the IETF representing
myself
- I know of IPR in someone else's contribution
- I'm participating in the discussion
- I'm under an NDA with that company that covers their IPR
Geoff
*Presidential Innovation Fellow | Executive Office of the President |
301.975.6283*
On 01/23/2014 10:58 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
2/ if you know of any of your IPR in any contribution from someone else
and you are participating in discussions
that involve that contribution, then you must disclose
3/ if you know of any of your IPR in any contribution from someone else
and you are not participating in discussions
that involve that contribution, then you are requested to disclose
see - its not that hard to say this briefly
Scott
On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Is the issue the difference between "any contribution YOU MAKE" and "any
contribution"? E.g. if you happen to hear someone discussing something you think is covered
by patent, you can't say anything, but conversely, if YOU are making a contribution that's covered
by patent then the NDA doesn't apply (because you have approval to make the contribution and
disclosure).
Mike
At 12:25 PM 1/23/2014, 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
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, (continued)
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Pete Resnick
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, Mary Barnes
- Re: Problem with new Note Well, John C Klensin
- Re: Problem with new Note Well,
Geoff Mulligan <=
- Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Jari Arkko
- Re: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Scott Brim
- RE: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Mulligan, Geoff
- Re: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Scott Brim
- Re: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Mulligan, Geoff
- RE: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), Dale R. Worley
- Re: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), David Morris
- Re: Third party disclosures and NDAs (Re: Problem with new Note Well ), ned+ietf
|
|
|