Re: Proposed BCP addition - No-Late-Patent-Filing Rights - contract provision for BCP/NoteWell - Re: [Nea] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07

tglassey <tglassey@earthlink.net> Fri, 05 October 2012 17:17 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=dR7+2JXIzJYoHn6fvkIxgMUjmHgxIqsKnAirkWS/VFzZ+vM9wTvoTAVFxFYtd4qb; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Message-ID: <506F1618.60800@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:17:12 -0700
From: tglassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed BCP addition - No-Late-Patent-Filing Rights - contract provision for BCP/NoteWell - Re: [Nea] IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-ietf-nea-pt-tls-07
References: <201210051603.q95G3PAX010579@freeze.ariadne.com>
In-Reply-To: <201210051603.q95G3PAX010579@freeze.ariadne.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: list

On 10/5/2012 9:03 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>> From: tglassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>
>>
>> But fixing this process is actually VERY SIMPLE... Just a 'component of
>> an updated BCP which contractually commits that IETF members and their
>> sponsors may not engage in submarining' its actually pretty simple to
>> stop this... you folks just have to want to.
> Unless someone has already constructed contracts to do this in some
> similar circumstance and time has shown that the contracts work as
> intended, I wouldn't assert that it is known to be simple.
Dale -
The contracts are airtight and supported through items like the Federal 
and State Courts ruling about the contractual strength of NDA agreements 
in rulings like Grail Semi v Mitsubishi. In this case the contract is 
the exact opposite of a NDA it is a guaranteed disclosure agreement - a 
no secrets here variant so this is in fact a no-brainer to solve.

Yes - the Jury may have screwed up the damage calculation but not the 
issue of whether the NDA controlled relationship was enforceable and 
that is the key. It is ...

Again - to fix this issue all you have to do is want to...

Todd
> Certainly
> there are many times in protocol design where conceptually simple
> goals prove to be remarkably difficult to achieve in practice.  There
> is no reason that believe that similar problems don't show up in the
> legal field.
>
> That's not to say that this proposal is a bad idea.  But let's not
> assume that it will take little work to achieve.
>
> Dale
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5810 - Release Date: 10/04/12
>
>


-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

Proposed BCP addition - No-Late-Patent-Filing Rig… tglassey
Re: Proposed BCP addition - No-Late-Patent-Filing… tglassey