ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Proposed IESG Statement on IPR Declarations

2016-07-08 12:06:15
On the third point...

(3) When I heard that the IESG was planning an additional
statement in this area, I assumed it would address the one
recent claimed development that seemed to be a loose end --
whether someone who is listed as both an inventor and a
co-author on a document can possibly claim to not have
reasonably have personal knowledge of a possible or perceived
interaction between the two.   I think current version of BCP 79
might actually be a tad weak there: such inventors not
disclosing because of (unpublished) hair-splitting that might
make the invention inapplicable is not in the community's
interest.  I think the intent of BCP 79 is (or should be) that
they disclose and, if appropriate, disclose why they don't think
there is an interaction.    Anything else just feels a little
sleazy and does not benefit either the IETF processes or the
inventor -- especially given the risk that the inventor's
company will later come along and try to enforce the patent
against users of the IETF's spec, disclosing only after others
build products or when the enforcement action is started.  I
think BCP 79 allows enough latitude for a formal interpretation
along those lines.  But this statement is completely silent on
the matter.

I agree that clarification of that is important, but I think it's
entirely out of scope for an IESG statement, and, rather, something
that has to be addressed by the BCP 79 update work.

Barry