Re: Last Call on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-08.txt ("Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology")

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

    l. "Reasonably and personally known": means something an individual
       knows personally or, because of the job the individual holds,
       would reasonably be expected to know.  This wording is used to
       indicate that an organization cannot purposely keep an individual
       in the dark about patents or patent applications just to avoid the
       disclosure requirement.  But this requirement should not be
       interpreted as requiring the IETF Contributor or Participant (or
       his or her represented organization, if any) to perform a patent
       search to find applicable IPR.


How do we deal with the case of a an individual that was exposed to IPR 
in a previous
employment, but no longer having access to the records of that employer is
uncertain about whether they know of such IPR? A third party disclosure 
is one
solution, but without access to records it may not be possible to 
sufficiently
identify the patent such that the legal department can file the disclosure.


6. Failure to Disclose

    There may be cases in which individuals are not permitted by their
    employers or by other factors to disclose the existence or substance
    of patent applications or other IPR.  Since disclosure is required
    for anyone making a Contribution or participating in IETF activities,
    a person who is not willing or able to disclose IPR for this reason,
    or any other reason, must not contribute to or participate in IETF
    activities with respect to technologies that he or she reasonably and
    personally knows to be Covered by IPR which he or she will not
    disclose, unless that person knows that his or her employer or
    sponsor will make the required disclosures on his or her behalf.

    Contributing to or participating in IETF activities about a
    technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of
    IETF process.

    In addition to any remedies the IESG may consider other actions. See
    [RFC6701] for details.


This assumes that the individual intends to support the technology that they
know to be encumbered.

Surely we need to also consider the case of an individual that although 
unable
to disclose IPR without breaching confidentiality is arguing for an 
alternative
unencumbered solution.

We also need to visit the matter of licence fees.

The IETF has a policy of not discussing licence terms, and in particular 
licence fees
in determining whether a technology is to be adopted or avoided. This 
policy does
not properly consider the extremity of the range of devices we support. 
What is
technically the best solution for a $1m router despite a significant 
licence fee
may not be viable for $0.01 IoT sensor because of the licence fee. Yet 
the WG is
not permitted to discuss those economics.

- Stewart