Re: I-D Action: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt

Michael Cameron <michael.cameron@ericsson.com> Wed, 30 March 2016 21:04 UTC

From: Michael Cameron <michael.cameron@ericsson.com>
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRg4DhNHvdUOiwLkuVYb3/xFidfJ9yOtOggACCP4CAAAV4gP//xg3n
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:04:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4187079E-FB70-4854-A37A-48374ED21DEB@ericsson.com>
References: <20160321144919.31961.89334.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <36BAA6A693139D4BBCB37CCCA660E08A14FB3369@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <56FC3339.2030801@gmail.com>, <B90D9695-4476-489D-9663-1485B30365B5@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B90D9695-4476-489D-9663-1485B30365B5@sobco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2Gfy4bCKwOlVkREcWn48t68TkUA>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

Hi Scott, please provide a cite to the case interpreting that phrase-depending on the context and court, this may not be as significant an issue.   Your second point about what someone "should" know is the concern.   If a Company X engineer is a co-author with 3 others on a number of drafts, and it is in one of a number of WGs that are overseen by a Company X AD, and this draft is overlooked by the Company X AD, "should" that Company X AD nevertheless have to redouble their efforts, ensure that they are aware of all the Company X drafts of all the workgroups under their area, then at least cursorily canvas the Company X IP portfolio? My experience is that a hostile trial lawyer will argue that the AD "should" have performed this at least cursory analysis. In fact, a trial lawyer will go further and torch an AD for not doing much, much more.  All because of the word "should".  Let's stay away from what someone "should" know and stick with what they do know.

Best, Mike

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
> 
> this is a legal issue - the language comes from a long ago US court case
> 
> in addition to what Brian brings out 
> 
> “reasonably’ also refers to what someone should, by their job, know - i.e. a company
> can not purposely keep someone in the dark to avoid disclosure requirements
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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.
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> Regards
>>  Brian
>

RE: I-D Action: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt Michael Cameron
Re: I-D Action: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt Brian E Carpenter
Re: I-D Action: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt Michael Cameron
Re: I-D Action: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt Scott O. Bradner
Re: I-D Action: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt Scott O. Bradner
Re: I-D Action: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt Michael Cameron