Telephone meeting.
The consensus is that Wed is bad and Fri is good. I suggest Friday Oct
8th at 2pm Eastern, 11am Pacific?
Thanks
jim
> At 01:58 PM 10/2/2004 -0400, James Hughes wrote:
> >Doug: This is fine. The original at IEEE-SA is enough.
> >
> >P1619: This is the "reasonable/non-discriminatory" letter for EME.
> >
> >I would suggest that we have a phone meeting (in preparation to the
> in
> >person meeting at the end of the month) Wednesday Oct 6th at 2pm
> Eastern,
> >11am Pacific. Comments on this time?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >jim
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sep 30, 2004, at 11:59 AM, Doug Crawford wrote:
> >>Jim,
> >>
> >>Please find attached both the IEEE signed letter of assurance form
> as well
> >>as a separate letter of assurance on UC letterhead. Please let me
> know if
> >>a hard copy original of the signed letter and/or form is needed and
> if so,
> >>what mailing address it should be sent to.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>
> >>Doug
> >> At 07:09 AM 9/21/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> >> >All I am looking for is the patent-assurance letter.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks
> >> >
> >> >Jim
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Phillip Rogaway <rogaway@cs.ucdavis.edu>
> >> >To: Doug Crawford <doug.crawford@ucop.edu>; Hughes, James P
> >> ><HugheJP@LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM>
> >> >Sent: Tue Sep 21 02:36:19 2004
> >> >Subject: Re: Rogaway EME technology
> >> >
> >> >Hi Doug and Jim,
> >> >
> >> >Just to clarify something -- what I've been urging isn't for
> >> >UC's patent-assurance letter to contain a specific offer, but
> >> >that we put out a separate offer letter around the same time.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >With kind regards,
> >> >phil
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 08:52:33 -0700, "Doug Crawford"
> >> ><doug.crawford@ucop.edu> said:
> >> > > Hello Jim,
> >> > >
> >> > > This message is directed to you wearing your IEEE hat.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm working on getting the patent letter out to the IEEE and
> am
> >> clear on
> >> > > the concept of non-exclusive reasonable terms aspect of the
> letter and
> >> > > have
> >> > > gotten decent acceptance from the signature authority here
> that this
> >> > > should
> >> > > not be a problem.
> >> > >
> >> > > However, Phil suggested that the letter would be more
> persuasive if we
> >> > > could put a figure, such as $50k one-time fee in the letter.
> To that
> >> > > end,
> >> > > I would appreciate hearing of any experience or insight you
> would
> >> have on
> >> > > such a fee as it relates to similar technologies or other
> technologies
> >> > > adopted (or not!) by the IEEE.
> >> > >
> >> > > Best regards,
> >> > >
> >> > > Doug
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > .
> >> > > Doug Crawford
> >> > > Licensing Officer
> >> > > University of California
> >> > > Office of Technology Transfer
> >> > > 1111 Franklin Street, 5th Floor
> >> > > Oakland, CA 94607-5200
> >> > >
> >> > > Direct Line: (510) 587-6035
> >> > > Main Number: (510) 587-6000
> >> > > Fax: (510) 587-6090
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Doug Crawford
> Licensing Officer
> University of California
> Office of Technology Transfer
> 1111 Franklin Street, 5th Floor
> Oakland, CA 94607-5200
>
> Direct Line: (510) 587-6035
> Main Number: (510) 587-6000
> Fax: (510) 587-6090