- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:46:40 -0500
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: "ext Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "'Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich'" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 13 Mar 2012, at 5:38 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 3/13/12 6:23 AM, ext Carr, Wayne wrote: >> But later is not the same people. A CG creates a Community Spec where a participant has personal knowledge of patents that contain essential claims. A WG adopts the Community Spec. Someone gets sued for implementing. >> >> The disclosure rules are lightweight. They involve personal knowledge, not any patent search. They prevent the situation that someone knows technology being added to a spec is encumbered but the group producing the spec does not. >> >> For the reason Charles mentioned, there should be a disclosure requirement in CGs ( based on personal knowledge like for W3C members and TRs). > > Yeah I agree. It seems like a relatively large bug in the CG PP to not require disclosures for CG specs. > > IJ - why was this done? Hi all, A disclosure obligation is considered a burden. Because we were trying to facilitate participation, we did our best to reduce burdens to participation. One idea that was discussed was "If you don't sign the FSA you have a disclosure obligation." There was resistance even to that proposal. So for the time being we have no disclosure obligation for CG reports. Note, however, that if a CG report moves to the Rec track, then disclosure obligations kick in as part of the W3C Patent Policy. Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 13:46:52 UTC