On 01/05/2016 01:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
Note that this is not a trivial extension. 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.
That really isn't something we can slide in through the back door.
In particular, "would benefit", if strictly interpreted, would mean that
anyone participating in a patent pool with license redistribution, or
possibly even ones with defensive suspension clauses (if that's seen as
a benefit) would be on the hook for any patent in the pool, not just the
ones they own or contributed to it.
MPEG-LA licensors, for instance, would probably like to know what the
rule is on that.
[Agreed fully with Jorge that this needs to go to the BCP79bis
discussion, not the Note Well discussion - Note Well has to summarize /
reference the *existing* rules, not what we (IETF mailing list members
of the moment) think the rules should be.]
--
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.