Subject: comments on technology-rights-10

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:13:30 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

Sorry again for missing the LC deadline, but only one clarification 
and a few wording nits inside:

substantial
-----------

6.1.2. An IETF participant's IPR in Contributions by others
   Any individual participating in an IETF discussion who reasonably and
   personally knows of IPR meeting the conditions of Section 6.6 which 
   the individual believes Covers or may ultimately Cover a Contribution
   made by another person, or which such IETF participant reasonably and
   personally knows his or her employer or sponsor intends to assert
   against Implementing Technologies based on such Contribution, must
   make a disclosure in accordance with this Section 6.

==> is this true or am I confused?  I thought that if you stayed quiet and 
didn't participate in discussions about your IPR in someone elses 
contribution, it would be OK (this could be the case e.g. due to 
confidentiality requirements, which is what section 7 seems to be saying)?

(Not that I like that particular loophole...)

editorial
---------

      at http://www.ietf.org/ipr/.

==> this should actually be /ipr or /ipr.html (sorry for advising to 
change to /ipr/ earlier!) [in a couple of places]

   IPR disclosures are made by following the instructions at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr-instructions.

==> note that this URL is not working at least yet, should it ?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 08:51:38 -0400 (EDT)

> substantial

your understanding is correct and that is what the text is supposed 
to be saying when it limits the impact to "Any individual participating in
an IETF discussion" 

please suggest text if that is not clear

Scott

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 07:29:09 -0700

Pekka -
----- Original Message ----- 

> substantial

The problem is as an active participant whether you have either a ethical or
legal mandate to disclose these IPR issues and again we come back to the
problems "that you as a participant may not have the legal capability to do
this since your employers (sponsers) may not have given you that
capability".

Either way this concept of making the participant responsible for failings
in the IP Owners to disclose a real problem.

> (Not that I like that particular loophole...)

Todd

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:26:59 +0300 (EEST)

> please suggest text if that is not clear

Perhaps in:

replace the fourth line with:

   made in that discussion by another person, or which such IETF 
participant reasonably and

(i.e. make the connection that we're talking about participating in the
*same* IETF discussion.)

and perhaps also add in the end:

If an IETF participant would not be able to disclose IPR, he or she must 
not participate in IETF discussions on that subject, as described in 
Section 7.