My responses are interleaved below.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "R. Baker Kearfott"<rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear P1788 members,
[...]
2. Under certain conditions, a patent holder should submit a
Letter of Assurance to IEEE. I have also attached the
letter of assurance form, to be filled out by patent
holders. (The letter of assurance is probably a good idea for
someone who might have an "essential patent claim," where "essential
patent claim" means one such that the standard cannot be
implemented without a license corresponding to that patent.)
It appears to me that the above point applies not only to existing patents, but also to patents applied for and even to claims that may appear in a future patent application. I.e., this appears to be a request for full disclosure -- a provision with which I agree.
My concern is that if the scope of the above provision is narrow then a participant could withhold information about a patent not yet granted or not yet filed until after the standard is approved. That would subvert the purpose of the "call for patents" and the Letters of Assurance.
It would be useful to obtain a clarification of the scope of the above provision from the responsible IEEE authority.
[...]
Since we intend to conduct substantial business by email, we
need to adhere to these rules. I suggest that, instead of
the "call for patents" at the beginning of each meeting, the
chair (or acting chair) issue an official call for patents
quarterly.
In my opinion a quarterly call is insufficient. I recommend a monthly call, which can be a brief message providing a link to all of the information related to this issue.
[...]
As far as I can tell so far, the actual standard wording is
not constrained by patents, but implementation of it may be.
(I am continuing to study IEEE policies and documents.)
In your deliberations, please consider the statement at the end of page three (3) of the LoA form. It states that the assurance lasts for the duration of the standard. The term used for the termination of a standard is "withdrawal". But as I understand the policies and procedures that apply to standards, withdrawal of an existing standard is automatic when it is revised and the revision is approved. That interpretation suggests that an LoA would be terminated by the revision process.
Since the interval standard is probably going to need substantial revision in light of issues that arise in the period immediately following its approval, the withdrawal of the initial standard might be quite soon. Some mechanism should be provided to extend the LoA statements to encompass successor standards or to provide a specific minimum duration at the discretion of the submitter.
My specific suggestion is that the term "withdrawal" be added to the list of definitions that begins on page four (4). The term should be defined to mean the FINAL withdrawal of the standard and to specifically exclude the the automatic withdrawal that occurs when an existing standard is superceded by its successor.
Sincerely,
Lee Winter
NP Engineering
Nashua, New Hampshire
603-595-2608