support the distinction that prime purpose for "note well" is the
importance for parties to look at other policy documents ... but not set
policy
And am paying much attention to Jorge's prediction that some new patent
policy proposed text will be released soon for comment
George T. Willingmyre
President GTW Associates
-----Original Message-----
From: Jorge Contreras
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 10:17 AM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: comment on the proposed new note well
These are really comments more properly directed to the patent policy in
BCP79. Please watch out for the BCP79bis document that will (hopefully) be
released soon for comment, and feel free to make these suggestions then.
As for Note Well, its language really can't deviate from the actual policy
that it points to, so the opportunities for substantive tweaking are
limited.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Keith Moore <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I think the note well needs to make it clear that the patent policy
applies to _any_ discussion that might influence the decisions that an
author or wg or iesg makes about a document - whether or not it occurs in
a wg meeting or on a mailing list.
Also, patent infringement is not a matter of "awareness" since it's a gray
area. And someone should have to disclose a patent held by his employer
even if his employer isn't "sponsoring" his IETF participation.
I would say instead something like "if you have reason to believe that a
contribution to the IETF is covered by patents or patent applications that
are owned by, controlled by, or would benefit, you, your employer, or your
sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in any discussion
regarding the contribution with anyone who could influence the content of
the document or whether it is approved."
Keith