Don,
Thanks for
the response. It does address my
concerns except for one case. As I
pointed out in the example in my previous email, I believe one of my comments is
the result of a goof in developing the text based on PatCom’s agreement. If the ballot result goes forward
before the SASB reviews the results, what happens if SASB changes the text?
RFick
-----Original
Message-----
From: don@lexmark.com
[mailto:don@lexmark.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006
10:56 AM
To: Townsend, Richard L, JR (Rick)
Cc: stds-board@ieee.org;
stds-patcom@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Process issue with
the Bylaws ballot resolution
Rick:
My understanding as well as staff's understanding is that a by-laws change does
not require any resolution of comments associated with YES or NO votes.
While this ballot was done electronically, it could have just as well
been done at a face-to-face meeting with 30 days notice. Comments
associated with negative votes at meeting are never resolved. Those
desiring to convince others on the board have the opportunity to present their
case via e-mail during the ballot period and even those who may have already
voted can change their vote up until the time of the closure of the balloting
period.
That said, the Core Drafting Committee is looking at ALL the comments received
during the ballot and is proposing a resolution for each of them. We are
using the same commenting tools we used during the PatCom process. I
expect to complete that process in the next few days.
All comments and their proposed resolutions will be provided to the BoG for
their consideration during their ballot. The BoG may chose to accept or
reject any of the proposed resolutions of any of the comments during their
consideration of the SASB by-laws change. The comments and proposed resolutions
will also be made available to at least the Standards Board members.
***************************************************************************
Don Wright
don@lexmark.com
f.wright@ieee.org / f.wright@computer.org
Director of Standards
Lexmark International INCITS Executive Board
Vice-Chair
C14/082-3
IEEE SA Standards Board Past Chair
740 New Circle Rd IEEE SASB
Patent Committee Chair
Lexington, Ky 40550 Member: IEEE SA
Board of Governors
859-825-4808 (phone) Member: IEEE CS SAB
& W3C AC
603-963-8352 (fax) Director,
IEEE-ISTO
***************************************************************************
|
|
"Townsend,
Richard L, JR (Rick)" <rltownsend@lucent.com>
11/01/2006 02:10 PM
|
To: "'don@lexmark.com'"
<don@lexmark.com>, "'stds-patcom@ieee.org'"
<stds-patcom@ieee.org>, "'stds-board@ieee.com'"
<stds-board@ieee.com>
cc: "'pp-dialog@ieee.org'"
<pp-dialog@ieee.org>
Subject: Process issue with the Bylaws
ballot resolution
|
Don and Board
Members,
I'm concerned about the process being followed regarding the Bylaws ballot,
in particular about having comments coming out of a ballot that neither PatCom
nor the SASB has had an opportunity to discuss. It looks to me that there
are unresolved NO votes on that ballot. At least one of those comments
concerns text that PatCom has not discussed. Yes, the documents were sent
out for review to PatCom members and to the interested parties on the pp-dialog
email list and I confess that with my PatCom hat on I missed this issue (and 3
others). With my SASB hat on I did not.
So it's not clear to me what process we are following and as a matter of
due process I do have a couple of questions.
Should PatCom review the comments from the latest ballot?
Should the SASB be notified of unresolved comments so they may consider the
issue before the result goes to the BoG?
I think the answer to both questions should be yes. Should the
process for changing our Bylaws, the rules by which we live, be any less robust
than those we use for approving our standards? I think not.
As an example, let me use one of my comments that raises an issue about
text that I believe is clearly in error. As a reminder, here is the
paragraph in question from the Bylaws and my comment.
From the Proposed Bylaws (p.3 line 20 of the clean copy):
"The Submitter of a Letter of Assurance shall agree (a) to provide
notice of a Letter of Assurance either through a Statement of Encumbrance or by
binding any assignee or transferee to the terms of such a Letter of Assurance:
(b) to require its assignee or transferee to agree to similarly provide such
notice and (c) to bind subsequent assignees or transferees to agree to provide
such notice as described in (a) and (b)."
My comment to the ballot:
"combing b) and c) for assignees
Bylaws, pg 3, line 22
From our PatCom discussions, I believe b) and c) are intended to be part of
a single action in which the holder of a patent right is asked to do two
things. In fact, the meaning of c) does not stand well by itself and seems to
require the original Submitter to bind all subsequent assignees.
Change line 22 to read '(b) to require its assignee or transferee to (i)
agree to similarly provide such notice and (ii) bind subsequent assignees or
transferees to agree to provide such notice as described in (a) and (b).'
"
I do not believe that what PatCom agreed to in principle meant to have the
Submitter of an LoA track subsequent assignees and require that Submitter to
get the assignees, in perpetuity, to agree to anything as is stated in (c).
The Submitter is not part of those subsequent transfers and has no power
and, in fact, no knowledge to force any agreement.
Rick