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

RE: [PP-DIALOG] An LOA draft addressing some but not all issues on the table at PatCom




Kent:

Thanks for responding.  Let me point out a couple of items.

As is described in the IEEE-SA Bylaws Change Process document found on this site (http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/pp-dialog/process.html), the governance of the IEEE is not a consensus process.  The members of the Patent Committee have a duty to act in the best interest of the IEEE not in the best interest of themselves, their employer or anyone else.  While we welcome comments from the broadest set of interested parties, our duty remains to the IEEE.

As chair, my assessment as to which topics to continue to work is based on direction from the members of PatCom and no one else.  

Also as chair, I am charged with running the meetings of PatCom.  In order to make progress, order and process must be maintained.  To assist in that, we are making information available to others outside the Patent Committee as early as possible so that it may be studied and positions asserted.  The chair will always allow the discussions at the meeting to continue until each member of PatCom has had multiple opportunities to speak.  However, the chair is under no such obligation to allow guests to speak at all.  I have provided opportunity after opportunity for our guests to speak at the meetings in the past but to move forward, I expect to reduce both the number of and time allocated to oral positions of our guests.  To insure each of our guests has an opportunity to express their opinion (even those too busy to attend in person), we have provided this PP-DIALOG forum.  By requiring written positions to be taken by those outside the committee on the topics posted on this list, we hope that the positions can be better stated and understood than purely "oral arguments."  Also, by providing a written position, the members of PatCom will have an opportunity to study a position longer and be able to better make informed decisions.  

Of course, this process will reduce the opportunity for those who purely want to spread fears, delay, and obfuscate rather than solve problems but it will enable the rest of us to be more efficient and effective.  

***************************************************************************
 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
***************************************************************************




"Baker, Kent" <kentb@qualcomm.com>

02/18/2006 10:51 PM

       
        To:        <don@lexmark.com>, <PP-DIALOG@listserv.ieee.org>
        cc:        
        Subject:        RE: [PP-DIALOG] An LOA draft addressing some but not all issues on the table at PatCom



Don –
 
After speaking with numerous IEEE members, it would be a mistake to interpret silence as consent.  It would be more accurate to interpret it as dismay that issues where consensus clearly does not lie continue to be debated at PatCom.  Also, some issues have been repackaged, such as suggesting there is consensus that "corporate knowledge" as applied to disclosures has support.
 
Everyone is extremely busy right now addressing IPR issues in numerous SDOs and government settings, especially with the accelerated scheduled being promoted at ETSI to revise its IPR policy.  Perhaps some large companies have knowledgeable resources to actively participate at all venues and accommodate all schedules.  We do not, and I expect many other IEEE members interested in the IPR policy issues also do not.
 
Last, I believe IEEE procedures allow that oral statements at PatCom to carry the same weight as written submissions.  Please advise the reflector if this is incorrect.
 
Best regards,
 
Kent Baker    
 



From: Don Wright [mailto:don@lexmark.com]
Sent:
Saturday, February 18, 2006 12:04 PM
To:
PP-DIALOG@listserv.ieee.org
Subject:
Re: [PP-DIALOG] An LOA draft addressing some but not all issues on the table at PatCom

 

Just a reminder that in the operation of committees like PatCom, it is a reasonable and widely used assumption that a lack of comments means agreement.

On February 8th, I posted a draft LOA which contained language dealing with a subset of the issues on PatCom's table.  To date, no one has raised any concerns.  We will interprete a continued lack of comments to be agreement.  Further, given the significant time that will have elapsed between the posting of this document and the March 27th PatCom meeting, the chair will not entertain discussion on this subject from guests at the meeting who have not thoroughly stated a position, including justification for that position, on the pp-dialog e-mail list.  I suppose you could say that this is my version of "speak now or forever hold your peace."

***************************************************************************

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

***************************************************************************