RE: [PP-DIALOG] Definition of Reasonable Rates
Don,
Thanks for starting this discussion and your work as chair
of the PatCom.
I have a question that really should be asked in several
ways to make sure you, or others, understand the information that I need to make
good decisions for TI and IEEE.
I really need to understand the reason for the Patent
Committee of the IEEE considering this change to what appears to be a generally
accepted rule of law.
Why is this being proposed at PatCom of
IEEE?
What underlying problem is PatCom trying to
solve?
How will PatCom adopting this statement affect patent
licensing? What is the intended effect of PatCom adopting this
statement?
I know that answering these questions will take some effort
fully to describe the answers, but the answers are extremely important;
they could affect millions of dollars in patent licensing and hundreds of
companies.
Everyone, I encourage anyone, not just Don, to respond
or supplement any responses provided to these questions.
Don, again, thank you for your time and
efforts.
Regards,
Larry Bassuk
Senior Patent
Counsel
Tele: 972-917-5458
Intellectual
Property Rights
Fax: 972-917-4418
Standards
Organizations
Cell: 214-458-5975
Texas Instruments
Incorporated
OK... the holiday season is over. Time to
throw some meat to the wolves...
One of the issues
the IEEE is trying to address is a definition of "reasonable rates, terms and
conditions" Other than the issue of the interpretation of "arms-length"
from a cultural perspective, here's where I think we left it:
Reasonable rates, terms and conditions
shall mean rates, terms and conditions that a willing licensor and a willing
licensee would agree to in an arms-length negotiation before the adoption of the
standard, taking into consideration any alternative technologies and any
alternative implementation methods which eliminate the essentiality of the
patent claim(s).
If we could, let's only consider
two aspects of this:
1) Does the IEEE need to define
this?
- Is this already
defined in some case law?
-
Should this be defined identically for all US SDOs, i.e., should it come ex
cathedra from ANSI? If so, what about the rest of the world?
- Is letting each judge in each
court in each case define it really a workable solution, i.e. is it OK not to be
able to predict the answer for each case?
2) If the
IEEE does define it, what should the definition be?
Please try to keep the argument at a level even us non-lawyers can
understand (not too much latin ;>)) Any pointers to cases should be to
something on the web (or attached) so we can all read it.
***************************************************************************
Don Wright
don@lexmark.com
f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org
Director of Standards
Lexmark International
Past Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
740 New Circle Rd
Chair, Patent Committee IEEE SASB
Lexington, Ky 40550
Member-at-large, IEEE CS SAB
859-825-4808 (phone)
Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors
603-963-8352 (fax)
Member, W3C Advisory Committee
***************************************************************************