Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [Fwd: [EFM] OAM transport...]


At 07:52 AM 2/10/02 +0000, Bob Barrett wrote:

I would have thought the time for disclosure is now.

The time for disclosure is any time. That is why I keep doing the "Call For Patents" at each and every meeting of 802.3.

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.

There is no such provision anywhere in the 802.3, 802 or IEEE-SA rules that I know of.

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.

Thank you. That is the proper venue

Best regards


Geoff Thompson, Chair, IEEE 802.3

-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Matt Squire
Sent: 09 February 2002 23:58
To: Martin Nuss;
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:
> Matt,
> 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.
> Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Squire [mailto:mattsquire@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 3:43 PM
> To:
> 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?
> Thanks.
> - Matt