I think this is a good Comment, but I believe the statement needs to stand on it's own.
There is an application 20040131182 that is Phil and assigned to UC and maybe other applications. Maybe they decided that they are going to abandon the patent. This is just conjecture.
We can ask Phil his opinion, but in essence we are asking if the UC lawyers are competent.
On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:18 PM, Matt Ball wrote: Hi All,
Today, IEEE posted a patent Letter-Of-Assurance received from the University of California in Davis stating that they were unaware of any patents that might be necessary for P1619.2. See this link:
http://standards.ieee.org/db/patents/loa-1619_2-ucdavis-20Nov2007.pdf
As you may recall, there was some discussion about a patent that Rogaway had filed on behalf of the University of California for EME. The last I heard, Rogaway had convinced the UC to freely license the EME patent. However, this letter states that the UC has no such patent.
This should be a discussion topic for the next P1619.2 meeting (did UC ever file the EME patent?).
--
Thanks!
Matt Ball
IEEE SISWG Chair
303-717-2717
http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewvball |