Re: FW: PatCom Report
Roger, in response to your request for a form to be filled out. There are
many reasons a lawyer would want to craft a letter that met the particular
company's needs. One example is that patent license would not be granted to
any company that would not cross license. Since patent portfolios have
different values, the successful negotion of a cross license agreement is
non-trivial. Also, companies with large patent portfolios look at this
entire issue very differently than companies with one or two strong patents.
Finally, the filling out of a form, as you suggest, is more than that. It
is signing away the company's rights, for no direct benefit. Lawyers get
shot for less.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 720 222-0900
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger B. Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: FW: PatCom Report
>
> The thing that still bugs me is that both versions ask for a "letter
> of assurance such as the one attached." I think it would be better to
> use a form with just the blanks to be filled in instead of basically
> inviting lawyers to be crafty. It seems to me that this is the only
> way to get all of the participants onto equal footing. Some people
> have told me that no lawyer would submit such a form, but it is my
> understanding that a number of other SDOs are successful in the "form
> letter of assurance" approach. I would like to hear some opinions
> from those who are less naive than me on this issue.
>
> Roger
>