ps - stated better in RFC 3979 sec 6.6
6.6. When is a Disclosure Required?
IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the
individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such
persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.
On Jan 4, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com> wrote:
• If you are aware that any contribution to the IETF is covered by patents
or patent applications that are owned by, controlled by, or would benefit
you or your sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in the
discussion.
Where does "or would benefit" come from in BCP 79? While I agree with the
sentiment, I don't think it follows from our rules, so I think it must
be deleted.
the concept comes from (for example) RFC 3979 section 6.1.3
6.1.3. IPR of Others
If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose
because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to notify
the IETF by sending an email message to ietf-ipr(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org. Such
a
notice should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person
realizes the connection.
i.e. the text is trying to deal with the case where you know of IPR but it is
not “yours”
this seemed to be a clean way to express the condition - just eliminating the
phrase
would, imo, make it harder to understand when disclosure is required -
other ways to get the point across would be helpful
Scott