Re: Proposed New Note Well

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 05 January 2016 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E95C1B2A4C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:50:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ww2ux93HqK2c for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D38F1B2A4A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 01:50:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748917C6607 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:50:51 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBfLXdOGzjSo for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:50:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1:30ac:3259:1d2a:d494] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:1:30ac:3259:1d2a:d494]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE9787C63AC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:50:50 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Proposed New Note Well
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160104154102.1127.50621.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <568AC7FE.101@gmail.com> <6451D0B3-9B0C-475E-B178-98E9EB6FD7D9@sobco.com> <11ED7904-3309-4B87-B8A4-7C4663C1AC30@sobco.com> <6EC907910707D24C66FF601E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <B8C14BAA-699A-4890-9A1C-B227D07CC5B3@sobco.com> <568AE4B0.7060700@gmail.com> <97C32E1E-A828-4FA1-981A-CDADD66FB730@stewe.org> <568B0FBB.1020805@gmail.com>
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <568B91FA.3030008@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:50:50 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <568B0FBB.1020805@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4Rd-OJ-bV7Egdp8MZVz6SDr3vaM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2016 09:50:53 -0000

On 01/05/2016 01:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>    IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
>    respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly by or otherwise
>    benefits the individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or
>    to IPR that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert."
>
> I don't like the idea of legislating on such a fundamental question other than
> through a BCP.
>
> Note that this is not a trivial extension. If companies A and B have a private
> patent cartel (a.k.a. cross-licensing), contributors from company B would
> be caught by this extension if aware of a relevant patent owned by company A.
> That really isn't something we can slide in through the back door.

In particular, "would benefit", if strictly interpreted, would mean that
anyone participating in a patent pool with license redistribution, or
possibly even ones with defensive suspension clauses (if that's seen as
a benefit) would be on the hook for any patent in the pool, not just the
ones they own or contributed to it.

MPEG-LA licensors, for instance, would probably like to know what the
rule is on that.

[Agreed fully with Jorge that this needs to go to the BCP79bis
discussion, not the Note Well discussion - Note Well has to summarize /
reference the *existing* rules, not what we (IETF mailing list members
of the moment) think the rules should be.]

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.