Re: IPR disclosure rules in general (Was: various other stuff...)

On 29/1/14 1:26 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
>      Date:        Tue, 28 Jan 2014 13:12:29 -0500 (EST)
>      From:        worley(_at_)ariadne(_dot_)com (Dale R. Worley)
>      Message-ID:  
> <201401281812(_dot_)s0SICTXk3778564(_at_)shell01(_dot_)TheWorld(_dot_)com>
>
>    | Indeed, if the IETF didn't have this rule, a company with undisclosed
>    | IPR could hire consultants, put them under NDA, and have them advocate
>    | at the IETF to include the IPR in standards.
>
> Much easier, for such nefarious company, is simply to hire (as employees, or
> consultants, it makes no difference) people to "represent" the company's
> interest at the IETF, and make sure that those people are unaware of any
> and all IPR claims that the company may possess.
That's not so nefarious. If those people are unaware of the IPR claims, 
they're unable to steer the working group towards infringing technology. 
I suspect that some companies are hiring people for their "IETF 
experience" and intentionally keeping them away from the R&D side of the 
company.
We may not like the idea of a professional IETF-er any more than people 
used to like the idea of a professional athlete. For years professional 
were banned from the Olympics. But I don't think such people or their 
participation are a problem.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature