RE: Patent notice in 802.16 paper submission template
I also have concerns about the patent boilerplate and its potential for
making it more difficult to contribute to the technical work of the
committee. The more legalistic we get in our procedures the more I will
have to involve legal counsel in review. I would hate to have things
progress to the point where for example, I couldn't put my name on a
Thursday 802.3 report of a Wednesday compromise because I didn't have time
to get counsel to review it.
Just last week I was excoriated by a company lawyer for a seemingly
innocuous internal email comment about patented technology. While I may
vote to include some technology in a standard, I am proscribed from
expressing or implying any opinion if that technology includes "the known
use of patent(s)". Meeting guideline 10 prohibits discussing the validity
of patents, so one interpretation of the quoted section of the bylaws (that
the technical committee knowingly includes patented information) is out of
sync with the guidelines. Stating I am "familiar" with the patent policy
may imply that I think I understand it, something significantly different
that just acknowledging I heard it.
Bob Grow
Intel
15250 Avenue of Science
San Diego, CA 92128
Voice: 858-385-4452
Fax: 858-385-4493
Email: bob.grow@intel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 12:25 PM
To: rdlove@us.ibm.com
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; jjlynch@us.ibm.com; holleman@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Patent notice in 802.16 paper submission template
Colleagues
I talked to Bob about this and I think we are lined up with each other.
I am concerned that we are raising the stakes just for the fun of it. What
problem is it that we are trying to fix here? One concern that I have is in
the area of individual vs. corp responsibility. Unlike most other standards
organizations we are indivuduhuls at 802 (even though we come with our
bills paid). The more of this stuff that we put on the face of
contributions the more overhead our contributors will face in the office
before they can get stuff out the door.
If Roger wants to do something more about the patent situation I would
suggest that he tie it to the attendance sheet rather than contributions.
I.e. that it say on his attendance sheet:
"I was at the meeting and heard the 'call for patents' (initial
here)_______"
and make that a condition of getting credit for attending the meeting and
therefore getting voting membership and your name in the front of the book.
Geoff
At 11:05 AM 12/20/99 -0500, rdlove@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>I am also concerned about the requested statement. However, I will go a
>step further than Geoff. I recommend that before we vote to add anything
>as required boiler-plate we each have our company lawyers review the
>proposed wording and see if they have any objections.
>
>We are moving quickly into legal ground. It is inappropriate for those of
>us without law degrees to be making what appears to be rational decisions
>on what acceptable legal wording is without getting competent legal
>assistance.
>
>Best regards.
>
>Robert D. Love
>Program Manager, IBM ACS - US
>Chair IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Working Group
>IBM
>500 Park Offices Phone: 919 543-2746
>P. O. Box 12195 CNPA/656 Fax: 419 715-0359
>Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA E-Mail: rdlove@us.ibm.com