- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:03:47 -0400
- To: ext Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- CC: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "'Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich'" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 3/13/12 1:03 PM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote: > On 13 Mar 2012, at 10:19 AM, Carr, Wayne wrote: > >>> Note, however, that if a CG report moves to the Rec track, then disclosure >>> obligations kick in as part of the W3C Patent Policy. >> The disclosure obligation if the CG spec moves into a WG is not for the same people as those who are in the CG. Disclosure for a TR is an obligation only for W3C members. CG members don't have to be W3C members. > That is correct. > >> Disclosure based only on actual personal knowledge isn't much of a burden. You either personally know or you don't. You don't have to do any search. You just have to disclose if you yourself already know. > While what you say is correct, I have been told by others that the disclosure obligation is a burden for people to join a group. One piece of rationale is that if people have a disclosure obligation and fail to disclose (for whatever reason) it is problematic in court. This is an area where I relied on input from lawyers as I do not have direct experience with this. If you can provide a link to those discussions, I would appreciate it. -Thanks, ArtB
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 13:04:23 UTC