- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:14:25 -0500
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "'Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich'" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 14 Mar 2012, at 8:03 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > 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. Here's a summary of some discussion: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-psig/2011JanMar/0232.html I can probably dig up more, but I am sure I had other discussions that were not archived. Of course, if experience suggests a disclosure obligation is necessary for people to participate, we can revisit that choice. Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 13:14:36 UTC