Re: Proposed Update to Note Well
Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com> Fri, 22 June 2012 02:49 UTC
Return-Path: <cntreras@gmail.com>
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 4ED5021F8548 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 IJa9puh+IztA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f52.google.com (mail-qa0-f52.google.com [209.85.216.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF0621F8491 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qabj34 with SMTP id j34so139633qab.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=FrSdSPPSM8kMJRcRswz300QSSYmALcokgb6lURuE0Mg=; b=scrcfXMOxZhQhNdv6enejhDGLCtyCfqGNWOavni0H91yNq61ma1K5W11O9SF+AQywq krJVgDoR8jndzS29G1LQ2bhNlMjUSIGhcz1Rvz/vMff/Z4DW1v3YYS2wW1FGlS3cTOgJ 750/kkLvopklE+S2rOqXigZk34cuVoZCCQo0sdXE9AHrMlLH1GCYJUbYNoS/5xMz0Pn2 TnJvtTfkEkal+nMW01/3/yMmtn/czzQ6CENlCviOd8jimVpL6gKWJNbzscge/+GZtIpb xcvEQoQYGaN1nSiJlHDEarOG6i5r59NjCKLBdmySMNiVZf2S84+/UJe7Puf2VDdQNQFD BCng==
Received: by 10.224.186.143 with SMTP id cs15mr3328906qab.94.1340333351105; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.171.121.45] (mobile-198-228-196-036.mycingular.net. [198.228.196.36]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n2sm66644068qap.10.2012.06.21.19.49.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
References: <CC08F195.88447%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <CC08F195.88447%stewe@stewe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <AFB6264C-0EA2-4E7E-A98D-5EEFEF514958@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9B206)
From: Jorge Contreras <cntreras@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Update to Note Well
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:49:00 -0400
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
Cc: IETF <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 02:49:12 -0000
Sent from my iPhone On Jun 21, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> 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" <chair@ietf.org> 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. >> >> > >
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Stephan Wenger
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Noel Chiappa
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Stephan Wenger
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Stephan Wenger
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Peter Saint-Andre
- Proposed Update to Note Well IETF Chair
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Stephan Wenger
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Scott Brim
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Sam Hartman
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Jorge Contreras
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Stephan Wenger
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well David Morris
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Noel Chiappa
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Salvatore Loreto
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Dan York
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Stephan Wenger
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Noel Chiappa
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Stephan Wenger
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Bob Hinden
- RE: Proposed Update to Note Well Robin Uyeshiro
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Jorge Contreras
- RE: Proposed Update to Note Well Robin Uyeshiro
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Jorge Contreras
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well John C Klensin
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Barry Leiba
- When is disclosure required (was: Re: Proposed Up… John C Klensin
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Eggert, Lars
- Re: Proposed Update to Note Well Barry Leiba