[802SEC] Re: RevCom submission/Patent Policy
Dave -
The expression "Run that by me one more time" springs to mind.
The logic, as far as I can tell, goes as follows:
1) If a patent is cited in a standard, then you have to tick "Yes" on the
RevCom form; if no patent is cited, you have to tick "No" - OK so far. However:
2) It is clearly the case that some form of disclosure must have taken
place in order for a patent to be cited in a standard, and:
3) Citing any patent in the standard appears, de facto, to involve the WG
taking a position on the validity or otherwise of a disclosed patent, which
therefore violates the policy. Alternatively:
4) If a patent or patent application has been disclosed, prior to (1)
occurring, then the WG cannot (indeed, shall not) make a determination of
the validity of the patent so declared, and therefore shall not cite the
patent (application) in the standard (see 3), and must therefore tick "No"
on the RevCom form.
So, given the above, it is entirely unclear to me how we would ever get
into a situation where a patent (application) is actually cited in a
standard, without violating the policy, unless citing a patent
(application) is simply an automatic consequence of someone making a
declaration and expressly does not make any value judgement regarding the
validity (or otherwise) of the declaration, which would seem to be
completely nuts.
In other words, it seems to be our very own version of "Catch 22".
Perhaps you could de-confuse me on this!
Regards,
Tony
At 22:20 19/03/2004, d.ringle@ieee.org wrote:
>Tony,
>
>I do not see the RevCom submittal form/instructions as violating the patent
>policy nor being in conflict with the patent slide set. To me, there is a
>difference between disclosures made and whether or not there is an
>inclusion of a known essential patent in the document.
>
>How would a Sponsor/WG know if there is a known inclusion of an essential
>patent and actually make a statement about such? If there is an actual
>patent cited in the text of the standard. {This does occur in some IEEE
>standards.}
>
>So, unless a patent is cited in the standard, I believe that the statement
>in the slide is correct. No position should be taken on the essentiality
>of any patents brought out from any disclosure statements.
>
>The RevCom submittal form (12A) asks if there is patented material in the
>proposed standard. The Help text goes on to explain that this should only
>be checked as YES if there is a known inclusion of an essential patent.
>This appears to be okay to me. We need to receive LoAs for any essential
>patents (i.e., those that are cited in the standard) to ensure that we will
>be able to publish the standard and have it be implemented [licenses will
>granted 'fairly' to implementers, as noted in the LoA].
>
>Regards,
>****************************************************************
>David L. Ringle
>
>Dave -
>
>Item 12 A on the current RevCom submittal form help notes
>(http://standards.ieee.org/board/rev/revcom_submittal_help.html#rev12)
>appears to violate the statements made on the first slide of the current
>patent policy slide set (that WG Chairs are supposed to use at their
>meetings) that states specifically that "neither the IEEE, the WG nor the
>WG Chairman ensure the accuracy or completeness of any disclosure or
>whether any disclosure is of a patent that in fact may be essential for the
>
>use of standards under development".
>
>It would appear that checking the YES box on the 12 A section of the RevCom
>
>form would violate current patents policy, as it could be construed as
>making a determination of the applicability or otherwise of any disclosures
>
>that have been made.
>
>Any views?
>
>
>Regards,
>Tony
Regards,
Tony