Re: Proposed Update to Note Well

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

On 6.21.2012 19:49 , "Jorge Contreras" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> So I call this a nit.  Still, thinking about a replacement for "own"
>>that 
>> is more layman-friendly than "right to assert" would be a worthwhile
>>exercise

> The word would be "control".

Agreed.  And "control" sounds reasonably straightforward to me.
Stephan



>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Jun 21, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Russ, policy-folks,
>> 
>> I support the simplification of the Note Well.
>> 
>> Two concerns, one substantial and one nit, with respect to the language
>> proposed.
>> 
>> The use of the work "know" in the context of requiring a disclosure is
>>IMO
>> substantially wrong.  It should be "believe".  Two reasons.  The
>>pragmatic
>> one: Positive "knowledge" of a patent covering a technology is not
>> something the IETF can expect from a layman.  The net result of this
>> language could well be that legal departments advise participants to
>>never
>> make disclosures, as they are not patent lawyers (let alone courts of
>>law)
>> that can reasonably make a determination of infringement.  Second, the
>> procedural reason:  Knowledge is not what BCP79 requires.  BCP79
>>requires
>> (in section 6) knowledge of IPR of which the contributor "believes" that
>> it covers, or may cover, the contribution.   According to my parsing of
>> English (and note that I'm not a native speaker), in the sentence
>> proposed, the "know" is attached to "covered" and not to the existence
>>of
>> a patent.  
>> 
>> The nit: "you or your employer own".  I believe that "own" is a close
>> enough (and practical enough) approximation of "right to assert", which
>>is
>> required in BCP79.  However, there are scenarios where one does not
>>"own"
>> IPR (in the sense of an assignment), but has the right to assert.  One
>> example would be an exclusive license.  In the light of recent legal
>> maneuvering (i.e. HTC asserting patents that they have borrowed from
>> Google--at least that is my understanding), language closer to BCP79's
>> language may be preferable.  Then again, the motivation of this exercise
>> appears to be to make the Note Well more accessible, and the language as
>> provided is not in contradiction with BCP79; it just leaves out one
>>exotic
>> class of cases.  So I call this a nit.  Still, thinking about a
>> replacement for "own" that is more layman-friendly than "right to
>>assert"
>> would be a worthwhile exercise
>
>The word would be "control".
>
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Stephan
>> 
>> 
>> On 6.21.2012 15:10 , "IETF Chair" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> The IESG has heard many complaints that the Note Well is too complex.
>>> After some discussion with counsel, we propose the following updated
>>>Note
>>> Well for your comment and review.  The below summary would be followed
>>> with a pointer to or text of more details, which will depend upon
>>>whether
>>> it's a meeting slide, on the web site, on the registration page, or on
>>>a
>>> mailing-list greeting.
>>> 
>>> On behalf of the IESG,
>>> Russ Housley
>>> IETF Chair
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> NOTE WELL
>>> 
>>> In summary:
>>> 
>>>  By participating with the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes.
>>> 
>>>  If you write, say, or discuss anything in the IETF, formally or
>>> informally,
>>>  (all of which we call "a contribution") that you know is covered by a
>>> patent
>>>  or patent application you or your employer own, one of you must
>>> disclose
>>>  that.
>>> 
>>>  You understand that meetings might be recorded and broadcast.
>>> 
>>> This would be followed with a pointer to or text of more details,
>>> which will depend upon whether it's a meeting slide, on the web site,
>>> on the registration page, or on a mailing-list greeting.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>