Re: Proposed IESG Statement on IPR Declarations

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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 disclosing because of (unpublished) hair-splitting that might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