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

RE: FW: PatCom Report


Also, "(country)" should be deleted. Many of us patent major patents in 
multiple contries. It would be a problem if someone provided a letter that
assured licenses under their US patent and then asserted another patent 
against products distributed elswhere. I don't recall the letters that
were submitted in the past limiting themselves to a specific country.

Secondly, "or patent applications" doesn't seem correct. One doesn't 
get or need a license on a patent application. It is only once the
patent is granted that licenses are necessary. What you probably mean
is something like "patents whether current or granted in the future"
though I'm not thrilled with that particular wording and would welcome
a more elegant statement. "Or granted as a result of current applications"
doesn't quite do it because somebody trying to be tricky might supply
the letter then do a new application (especially since one has a year
after public disclosure to submit a US patent).

Third, some letters have used phrasing like "patents necessary to implement
the standard". A broad statement like that is good so we might
want the sample letter to have it plus a note that it can be replaced
by a more specific statement such as either patent numbers or a statement
defining the scope of patents such as "covering the x coding method" or
"necessary to implement the xxx transceiver".

Trying to write the sentence to cover both kinds of statements at the
same time is why it doesn't parse.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree []
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 3:08 AM
To: Jim Carlo
Cc: IEEE802; Jerry Peterson
Subject: Re: FW: PatCom Report

Jim -

Not at all clear what the first line of the proposed Letter of Assurance - 
"We hereby agree that (company) will provide licenses under our (country) 
patents and/or patent applications which meet the following description ( 
optional company text ) with respect to the proposed IEEE Pnnn standard and 
subsequent revisions thereof." intends. In particular, what does the which 
in "which meet the following description ( optional company text )...." 
refer to, and what is an example of what might go between the 
braces?  Seems like there is something missing from this sentence.


At 23:55 17/10/00 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:
>Note proposed pro-forma patent letter attached. I would prefer that you
>don't send this to reflector until it is edited and approved by IEEE , so
>don't have multiple patent leters in the offing (it will get too
>However, please seek your own legal council and I would appreciate any
>comments on these letters that I will collect and send to Jerry Peterson,
>PatCom chair, for review at the Dec Standards Board Meeting
>Jim Carlo( Cellular:1-214-693-1776 Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
>TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
>Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Telecom and Info Exchange Between Systems
>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee