GDC term sheet - balance the background-IP clause so it never reads as claiming Google shared code, and approve the live-patch quote as written

Situation

At the GDC Terms Sync, Bjorn set the main position: accept Google other changes (easy out, setup fees ending at 1.8M) in the spirit of partnership, and make it non-negotiable that the minimal kernel and CLK/FIPS 6.18 work are CIQ background IP, for the avoidance of doubt. Peter added the guardrail that Google will share live-patching code and Tissa will never agree that is CIQ IP, so the line must not read that way; he accepted Bjorn narrower wording, and Kelly added a counterweight that code shared by Google is Google IP. On the live-patch quote, Peter dismissed Nathan scoping comment (the cost is standing up kernel-signing infrastructure, not which kernel), deleted the comment, and approved the quote to ship.

Reasoning

Confirmed by Peter. Bjorn owns the commercial position; Peter pressure-tested the wording against direct knowledge of Tissa, because a blanket IP claim would fight over the one thing Google cannot concede and stall a term sheet that must close this quarter. Symmetric ours-is-ours, yours-is-yours language is easy for Google legal to accept. The signing infrastructure is the cost driver, so the kernel-scope question does not change the price and is not worth a round trip.

Additional Context

Peter afterward noted Alyssa and Tissa were clearly allies on getting it across the line.

Observed Evidence

Peter IP-clause guardrail; Kelly balancing line; Peter deletes Nathan comment and approves the quote.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis