Hi Brian,
On 1/4/16, 16:35, "Brian E Carpenter"
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 05/01/2016 11:36, Stephan Wenger wrote:
[...]
If, after community review, the IETF at large decides that an extension of
BCP79’s scope is what it wants, then why not put it in the Note Well?
Rather, I would say, why not put it in BCP 79? It isn't hard - basically it
needs
a one paragraph RFC (not counting boilerplate) to do so.
"Section 6.6 of RFC 3979 (When is a Disclosure Required?) is replaced by the
following text:
IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly by or otherwise
benefits the individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or
to IPR that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert."
I don't like the idea of legislating on such a fundamental question other than
through a BCP.
OK. Jorge made a similar point. I guess it’s a matter of taste. I can go
either way and have no strong opinion, but I would really like to see the
privateering problem addressed during this decade (and you showed a way to do
just that, while Jorge mentioned that even 3979bis is an potion--thanks).
[...]
If companies A and B have a private patent cartel (a.k.a. cross-licensing),
contributors from company B would
be caught by this extension if aware of a relevant patent owned by company A.
A disclosure obligation is triggered for an individual when *the individual* is
aware of both a) the patent is owned/controlled/beneficial to the
employer/sponsor, and b) patent reads on contribution. Right? I think it’s
absolutely fair to expect an individual to incur such a disclosure obligation.
After all, he or she needs to be both familiar with a third party patent (owned
by the cross-licensor) to make the technical call, and with sufficient detail
of the cross-licensing arrangement itself to make the call under b). Looking
around in the IETF, I think we would be talking about a very small group of
people, all very patent savvy and with legal on speed dial. The remaining vast
majority is (probably blissfully in this case) ignorant.
That really isn't something we can slide in through the back door.
Agreed.
Brian