RE: [Fwd: [EFM] OAM transport...]
I would have thought the time for disclosure is now.
If the disclosure is after the vote in March, and if that vote is a 75%, and
it is later announced that the selected technology is covered by a patent,
then I would have thought that would make the vote null and void under
IEEE802 operating rules.
BTW - there is prior art from 10 years ago on preamble and IPG usage for
transport from Digital. It would be arguable if a particular definition of
bit patents constitutes a significant difference from the prior art. I'll
let the people with lawyers worry about the details.
[mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Matt Squire
Sent: 09 February 2002 23:58
To: Martin Nuss; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [EFM] OAM transport...]
Agreed. At some point the claims must be disclosed, and I was "asked to
ask" for disclosure as the proposals are evaluated. The request didn't
seem unreasonable to me so I passed it on.
Martin Nuss wrote:
> If one or more company has intellectual property for either approach,
> each company is required to agree to license on fair, reasonable,
> reciprocal and non-discriminatory terms, any patent claims it owns
> covering such technology.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Squire [mailto:mattsquire@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 3:43 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [Fwd: [EFM] OAM transport...]
> I've been asked by a couple people to ask another question of the
> proponents of the any of the OAM transport mechanisms:
> 11) Can you comment on any intellectual property considerations of which
> the group should be informed?
> - Matt