Re: Proposed Update to Note Well

[Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 6/22/12 10:03 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> Strike "actively".  It's a loophole and adds no value.
>
> Sure.
>
>> I don't know how a "contribution" can be "controlled" by
>> a patent.
>
> Sure. I misread your earlier note.
>
>> Using "related" as the broadest possible term that IMO
>> may just be supported by BCP79:
>
> BCP79 says "covered".
>
>>    "If you believe  that a patent controlled by your employer
>>    or sponsor is related to your contribution, then you must
>>    disclose that patent."
>>
>> I'm quite sure that the term "believe" is appropriate.  It's not
>> the Note Well that allows trucks go through, it's BCP79.  However,
>> ignoring my own advice (stick to terminology used in BCP79) I may
>> settle for "aware of":
>>
>>    "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).
>
> Keeping it as short as possible, I suggest:
>
>   If you are aware that a contribution of yours is covered by
>   patents, you need to disclose that fact.

Shouldn't that be

s/patents/patents or patent applications/

?

Regards
Marshall

>
> OK, enough wordsmithing from me today...
>
> /psa