Re: [PP-DIALOG] Reciprocity clause needed
Don-
(As a non-lawyer ) From my past observations of PatCom, I don't think any
information can be assumed about the reasonableness of suspension (or
anything else).
Therefore, its inclusion or exclusion would be a judgement call by PatCom
and tilt PatCom down the slippery slope of judging Terms and
Conditions.
Much as I might like to have some particular T&C always included to
facilitate standards development, I don't think the IEEE should get into
the business of deciding those. The cost of defending its decisions is
potentially too high.
I believe that we need to open the discussion to creative solutions wrt
to evaluating (or not) T&C. Historically, T&C were evaluated by
PatCom. With the voting membership of PatCom now consisting solely of
industry volunteers, the question of conflict of interest looms large.
Geoff
Disclaimer: The above opinion is that of only an individual and not
necessarily representative of any corporation, much less my
employer.
Nothing above should be taken as an opinion against reciprocity
clauses.
At 10:03 AM 3/17/2006 , Don Wright wrote:
Hung, et al:
Reciprocity, defensive suspension, choice of jurisdiction are among those
implicitly included in "reasonable terms and conditions" of a
RAND (either with or without monetary compensation) commitment.
***************************************************************************
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
***************************************************************************