On 7/30/09 4:29 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>
>> That said, I'm in favor of keeping the blue sheets based on principles of
>> record retention. But their IPR impact, I believe, is rather limited.
>
> If A asserts that B said something, and B denies having been present
> at the meeting, they could come into play. Similarly for email archives.
>
Yes. That's why I wrote "limited", and not "non-existent".
Stephan
> Brian
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stephan
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/09 4:00 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-07-31 02:25, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/09 at 3:03 PM +0100, Samuel Weiler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What harms would come from destroying those old records and/or not
>>>>> collecting such details in the future? And how widespread is the
>>>>> support for destroying them?
>>>> Repeating something I just mentioned to Sam in the hallway (and IANAL,
>>>> even though I teach some of this stuff to engineers):
>>>>
>>>> There is some case law that says that if you participate (even
>>>> passively) in a standards body in which patent disclosure is required,
>>>> and you choose not to disclose your patents, you may lose your rights to
>>>> assert the patents. Having a blue sheet with someone's name on it may be
>>>> sufficient for a court to find that the person can't assert. I think
>>>> that makes the blue sheets worth keeping.
>>> I think that we *care* about IPR disclosures and that we *hate* the idea
>>> of people observing IETF activity and concealing relevant patents. So having
>>> a record of WG attendance is important; having a record of mailing list
>>> membership would be the same. We want to make sure that people can't
>>> falsely plead ignorance in case of missing IPR disclosures.
>>>
>>> Indeed, it isn't the IETF itself that would end up in court, but our records
>>> can end up in court as evidence that a patent holder did (or did not)
>>> participate in a standards discussion and did (or did not) make an
>>> appropriate IPR disclosure.
>>>
>>> That means keeping attendance records for many years - at least for the
>>> lifetime of a hypothetical patent.
>>>
>>> I agree with Alissa that having an explicit privacy policy would be a
>>> good idea, but the fact of participation in an open standards process
>>> certainly cannot be considered a private matter. Exactly the opposite,
>>> in fact.
>>>
>>> Brian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
