Re: Proposed Update to Note Well

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Fri, 22 June 2012 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C59221F86BD; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S8ClhsGUoMI0; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA8121F8611; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53318400EE; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:34:02 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FE4A864.6000207@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 11:16:20 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120601 Thunderbird/13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed Update to Note Well
References: <CC09F337.8855E%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <CC09F337.8855E%stewe@stewe.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:16:22 -0000

On 6/22/12 11:07 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 6.22.2012 09:31 , "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/22/12 10:03 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>>    
>>>    "If you are aware of a patent controlled by your employer
>>>    or sponsor that is related to your contribution, then you must
>>>    disclose that patent."
>>
>> Why is it limited to employers and sponsors? I might control it myself
>> directly, or just know that a patent covers it (BCP79, Section 6.1.1).
> 
> Section 6.1.1 requires the IPR being controlled by employer or sponsor.

That's not how I read 6.1.1.

   Any Contributor who reasonably and personally knows of IPR meeting
   the conditions of Section 6.6 which the Contributor believes Covers
   or may ultimately Cover his or her Contribution....

Nothing there about employers or sponsors.

   ...or which the
   Contributor reasonably and personally knows his or her employer or
   sponsor may assert against Implementing Technologies based on such
   Contribution, ....

That's one branch in the decision tree, but not the only one.

   ...must make a disclosure in accordance with this Section
   6.

> The part you are referring to is gated by section 6.6, which is where
> The employer or sponsor control is required.

Not as I see it ("by the individual"):

   IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
   respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly, by the
   individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or that such
   persons otherwise have the right to license or assert.

> That leaves us with
> 
>    If you are aware of a patent controlled by your employer
>    or sponsor that is related to your contribution, then you must
>    disclose that patent."

It needs to say "you or..."

> "Disclose that *patent*" instead of "disclose that *fact*", because we
> Do not want to see disclosures suing "I'm aware of IPR covering my
> Contribution".

Right. :)

> My final word for today as well; see you all tomorrow on this fine list :-)

Mine too. I hope. :)

/psa