RE: [Fwd: [EFM] OAM transport...]
At 07:52 AM 2/10/02 +0000, Bob Barrett wrote:
I would have thought the time for disclosure
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
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
Geoff Thompson, Chair, IEEE 802.3
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
ask" for disclosure as the proposals are evaluated. The
seem unreasonable to me so I passed it on.
Martin Nuss wrote:
> If one or more company has intellectual property for either
> each company is required to agree to license on fair,
> reciprocal and non-discriminatory terms, any patent claims it
> covering such technology.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Squire
> 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
> proponents of the any of the OAM transport mechanisms:
> 11) Can you comment on any intellectual property considerations of
> the group should be informed?
> - Matt