actually - when 2026 was written that language was recommended by the (many)
lawyers who advised us
specifically because it had been tested
Scott
On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:20 PM, Michael Cameron
<michael(_dot_)cameron(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hello Brian. I respectfully disagree. If the meaning of the phrase has not
been litigated, it has not been tested. Regarding your second point, please
refer to Gonzalo's earlier comment. For those and other reasons, I continue
to believe that these amendments add certainty and clarity to the policy.
Best, Mike
On Mar 30, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 31/03/2016 06:01, Michael Cameron wrote:
...
To clarify this, I would propose deleting the phrase "reasonably and" in
Section 5.1.2.
I would object very strongly to this deletion. We have always said
"reasonably and
personally known" to make it clear that nobody is expected to go to
unreasonable
lengths to discover the existence of IPR. For anyone who works for a large
company,
it is clearly unreasonable for them to be aware of all IPR owned by that
company,
and this phrase covers that case nicely, especially given that we all
participate
and contribute here as individuals, even if we happen to use a corporate
email
address. This phrase has stood the test of time and should not be changed.
...
... Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, acting as a working
group chair or Area Director shall constitute "Participating" to the extent
such person engages in discussions or review of a Contribution as part of
the activities of their relevant working group or area.
That seems 100% redundant to me. How could anybody possibly interpret the
roles
of WG Chair or AD as anything other than participating, at moments when they
are not contributing (which they often do)?
Regards
Brian