Re: [P1619-1] [STDS-P1619] IEEE RevCom approves P1619 and P1619.1

[Matt Ball <matt.ball@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ian,

A couple things:

• We cannot change P1619 and P1619.1 at this point, except for recommending editorial changes to the IEEE editors that may or may not be implemented.
• The paragraph on patents is part of standard IEEE boilerplate and is outside the scope of this working group.  The best place to propose changes to this paragraph (like including statements about patent claims or non-claims) is to contact the IEEE Patent Committee (PatCom) (see < http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html>).  PatCom could then recommend changes to the IEEE template.  The obvious recommendation that comes to mind is to provide a link to the PatCom page that contains all the patent statements (< http://standards.ieee.org/db/patents/index.html>).
  
• Neither the IEEE, the working group, nor the working group chair is responsible for conducting patent searches for patents that may be required to implement the standard.
• At each standards meeting, we should the slides at this link, calling for patents: <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.pdf>
• If group members try to submarine patents into the standard, they can get into a lot of trouble.  Since the minutes of each working group meeting include this patent slide set, it's hard to deny that you saw them.
  

Regards,
-Matt

On Dec 14, 2007 2:00 AM, dtufs wrote:

Thank you. Note that anyone who wishes to implement the standard may have the same questions about the patent status and they won't search this workgroup mailing lists for answers. They should be able to find the information in the standard specs. In the Patent chapter (along with the disclaimer "there may be some patents") there should be an additional subsection listing all relevant persons (above all, the desingers) who expressly waived any patent claims. Then you won't be getting these questions and it will increase the usability of the standard. Thank you again.

----- Original Message ----
From: Shai Halevi
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:29:12 PM
Subject: Re: [STDS-P1619] IEEE RevCom approves P1619 and P1619.1


This matter was discussed and resolved long ago, as you can find in
the email archive, see in particular the message from Sep-28, 2006

  http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1619/email/msg01309.html

The bottom line: Phil did not claim any IP regarding XEX, nor does he
know of anyone else who might have such a claim.

Also please note that discussions of XEX/XTS should be carried out at
the 1619 mailing list, not the 1619.1 mailing list.

-- Shai

dtufs wrote:
> To ensure implementability of the standard, there have to be
 assurances
> at least from the designers of the mode. Has anyone asked Phillip
> Rogaway, the designer of the XEX mode, if he had patented his mode or
 if
> he intends to do so?
>
> Also, at http://ieee-p1619.wetpaint.com I found the following:
> "AI1 Shai: do a due diligence investigation on patents on XEX by
 talking
> to people that might have extra-USPTO info"
>
> What was the outcome of that investigation?
>
> Thank you.

     ____________________________________________________________________________________

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

-- 
Thanks!
Matt Ball
IEEE SISWG Chair
303-717-2717
http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewvball