Hi Barry,
On 4/4/16, 10:43, "ietf on behalf of Barry Leiba"
<ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of
barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:
So, one might argue that an AD can be unaware that a particular
document includes something that needs to be disclosed up to the
point that they take some action on that document, such as sponsoring it.
Yes, but is that an issue? The AD is only required to disclose when
she is "reasonably and personally aware" of the need for a disclosure,
which will presumably become the case when she actually reads the draft
(or sees the slides that describe the technology in question).
Be careful here: I think it is an issue.
The "reasonably and personally aware" applies to the IPR, not to the
participation.
I think this is incorrect.
According to section 5.1.2 (disclosure requirement based on Participation, not
own IPR), a disclosure obligation exists if “the Participant believes Covers or
may ultimately Cover that Contribution”. I don’t think anyone could argue that
an AD has a “believe” in a patent or application he/she is aware of Covers a
Contribution when he has never seen the Contribution.
If I'm participating in active discussion about
Section 4 of document X, and I should be reasonably and personally
aware of IPR my employer holds with respect to Section 3 of document
X, we aren't going to happily accept that I didn't read Section 3 so I
don't have a responsibility to disclose.
If we're saying that, say, ADs are considered to be Participants with
respect to every document and discussion in every working group in the
area -- and I see why some people think that's wise and appropriate --
then we're saying that I have a responsibility to disclose whether or
not I've read the documents, and waiting until AD Evaluation state
would be a late disclosure. Consider that the working group might
have been proceeding for a couple of years and many I-D revisions
under the assumption that the technology is unencumbered... and then I
dump an IPR statement on them just as they've finished.
A late disclosure is better than no disclosure, and, clearly, an AD has a much
better justification of making such a late disclosure. I would hope that no
one would complain if an AD makes a late disclosure and, when asked for the
reason of lateness, he says “I was not responsible AD; I came across this
during final review in IETF last call, and just identified this. “ In fact,
people should appreciate this.
Stephan
This really is a tough one: it would be nice if the late disclosure
didn't happen, but ADs can't reasonably be expected to read every
draft in every working group early on... and, as others have said, it
would be very bad if this disclosure requirement gave us even fewer AD
candidates than we have now.
Barry