Subject: comment on the proposed new note well

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:31:09 -0500

I think the note well needs to make it clear that the patent policy 
applies to _any_ discussion that might influence the decisions that an 
author or wg or iesg makes about a document - whether or not it occurs 
in a wg meeting or on a mailing list.

Also, patent infringement is not a matter of "awareness" since it's a 
gray area.   And someone should have to disclose a patent held by his 
employer even if his employer isn't "sponsoring" his IETF participation.

I would say instead something like "if you have reason to believe that a 
contribution to the IETF is covered by patents or patent applications 
that are owned by, controlled by, or would benefit, you, your employer, 
or your sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in any 
discussion regarding the contribution with anyone who could influence 
the content of the document or whether it is approved."

Keith

---

From: Jorge Contreras <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:17:14 -0500

These are really comments more properly directed to the patent policy in BCP79. Please watch out for the BCP79bis document that will (hopefully) be released soon for comment, and feel free to make these suggestions then. 

As for Note Well, its language really can't deviate from the actual policy that it points to, so the opportunities for substantive tweaking are limited. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I think the note well needs to make it clear that the patent policy applies to _any_ discussion that might influence the decisions that an author or wg or iesg makes about a document - whether or not it occurs in a wg meeting or on a mailing list.
> 
> Also, patent infringement is not a matter of "awareness" since it's a gray area.   And someone should have to disclose a patent held by his employer even if his employer isn't "sponsoring" his IETF participation.
> 
> I would say instead something like "if you have reason to believe that a contribution to the IETF is covered by patents or patent applications that are owned by, controlled by, or would benefit, you, your employer, or your sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in any discussion regarding the contribution with anyone who could influence the content of the document or whether it is approved."
> 
> Keith
>

---

From: "GTW" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:54:51 -0500

support the distinction that  prime purpose for  "note well" is  the 
importance for parties to look at  other policy documents ... but not set 
policy

And am paying much attention to  Jorge's prediction that some new    patent 
policy proposed text will  be released soon for comment

George T. Willingmyre
President GTW Associates

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jorge Contreras
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 10:17 AM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: comment on the proposed new note well

These are really comments more properly directed to the patent policy in 
BCP79. Please watch out for the BCP79bis document that will (hopefully) be 
released soon for comment, and feel free to make these suggestions then.

As for Note Well, its language really can't deviate from the actual policy 
that it points to, so the opportunities for substantive tweaking are 
limited.

Sent from my iPhone

> author or wg or iesg makes about a document - whether or not it occurs in 
> a wg meeting or on a mailing list.
>
> Also, patent infringement is not a matter of "awareness" since it's a gray 
> area.   And someone should have to disclose a patent held by his employer 
> even if his employer isn't "sponsoring" his IETF participation.
>
> contribution to the IETF is covered by patents or patent applications that 
> are owned by, controlled by, or would benefit, you, your employer, or your 
> sponsor, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in any discussion 
> regarding the contribution with anyone who could influence the content of 
> the document or whether it is approved."
>
> Keith
>