Subject: Re: -technology and 3rd party disclosures

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:37:53 -0400

> if the wording is not clear please suggest text

How about changing the first sentence of the following:

> 6.1.3. IPR of others
>    If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
>    Contributions, and such IPR does not meet the conditions of Section
>    6.6 as to such person, such person is encouraged to notify the IETF
>    by sending an email message to [email-masked].  Such a notice
>    should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person
>    realizes the connection.

to

6.1.3. IPR of others

   If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
   Contributions, but the participant is not required to disclose
   because they do not meet the criteria in Section 6.6 (e.g., the IPR
   is owned by some other company), such person is encouraged to
   notify the IETF by sending an email message to [email-masked].
   ...

Thomas

Scott  Bradner <[email-masked]> writes:

> thomas asks:
> > >    If a person has information about IPR that may Cover IETF
> > >    Contributions, and such IPR does not meet the conditions of Section
> > >    6.6 as to such person, such person is encouraged to notify the IETF
> > >    by sending an email message to [email-masked].  Such a notice
> > >    should be sent as soon as reasonably possible after the person
> > >    realizes the connection.
> > 
> > Don't understand what this is trying to say. Is this saying that if I
> > know about (relevant) IPR, but I'm not the IPR holder (maybe I work
> > for some other company), I do not have to disclose existance?

> that is what it is trying to say - if its not your IPR you do not
> have to dislose it (you might know about it under NDA for example) but
> we would like you to disclose

> > The above to me reads like there is IPR, someone knows about it, but
> > they don't have to disclose.

> that is correct if it is not their (or their company's)IPR 

> > Maybe  my confusion stems from the "and such IPR does not meet the
> > conditions..." Its not just a question of the IPR meeting the
> > condition, it's whether the person who knows of the IPR is a
> > participant. Is the above trying to encourage non-participants to
> > disclose things they know about?

> no - it is trying to get people who know about IPR that is not their 
> own to tell us about the IPR  but not making such a disclosure 
> required in order to participate (like is the case if you see your
> IPR in someone else's contribution)

> if the wording is not clear please suggest text

> Scott

> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:42:30 -0400 (EDT)

done

---

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:37:53 -0400

to

6.1.3. IPR of others

Thomas