Re: [PP-DIALOG] Applicability of LOAs

[GTW <gtw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello all:

 

On the matter of why some independent criteria how an “LOA”  gets to be an “accepted "LOA” could be helpful.  And another question for which I do not know the answer that patcom might take up in Berlin

 

There have been a couple of “accepted "LOAs” that might be considered “negative LOAs”  ... although the term “negative LOAs” is not defined  as far as I  am aware anywhere in the bylaws  https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/negative-loa-802_11n-nokia-18Mar2016.pdf  and  http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/negative-loa-802_11af-nokia-13Jan2016.pdf   and  https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/negative-loa-802_11ad-nokia-13Jan2016.pdf

 

It seems to me that the LOAs above would not  meet the criteria in the patent policy  6.2  clip “The licensing assurance shall be either:”   http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sect6-7.html

 

I am not sure what the existence of such accepted LOAs mean for the standard that is being cited?  If the criteria  in 6.2 states that a license assurance is to be provided but there is an “accepted LOA” that a license assurance is not being provided ... does it mean that there is a conflict with the bylaws? 

 

Maybe patcom could prepare a FAQ what such an “negative LOA” means for the referenced standard.

 

 

 

George T. Willingmyre
President GTW Associates

 

From: GTW

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 11:54 AM

To: Don Wright ; PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] Applicability of LOAs

 

Hello all:

 

Apologies that this does not specifically answer the questions below.  But  pointing  out a matter that patcom might wrestle with.  

 

Separate observation ... No doubt   Patcom needs flexibility in doing its job but it is a good precedent that PP-Dialog is  being used to seek  input on the sort of questions below.  From the successful use of the comment disposition tool employed  in the various iterations of the patent policy,  it could be a  helpful next step if patcom  recorded the disposition/consideration of various comments it receives on   documents/questions  patcom is working on

 

I see confusion/controversy about how  an “LOA” becomes  “an accepted LOA”    ... Clip from 6.1 http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sect6-7.html

 

"Accepted Letter of Assurance" and "Accepted LOA" shall mean a Letter of Assurance that the IEEE-SA has determined is complete in all material respects and has been posted to the IEEE-SA web site. 

 

It seems to me could be helpful to describe in a little more detail how an LOA gets from an LOA  that is submitted to being an “accepted LOA” that can be posted to the IEEESA website.  Maybe an informal check list?  Or a new FAQ? Seems to me there is opportunity for there to be unhelpful hold up in an LOA becoming an “accepted LOA” unless there are independent criteria or some check list how IEEE-SA determines what has been submitted is “complete in all material respects”   My point of view  is that any SDO has  the right to require what information needs to be included in an LOA  and to require that some specific form  be used  ... but that any SDO also ought to have a very light touch about not accepting what could be relevant IP information. 

 

A good deal of attention seems to be focused on “negative LOAs”  But I do not see that term anywhere defined in the bylaws.  There is some text that seems close ... clip from section 6.2 http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sect6-7.html 

 

“An asserted potential Essential Patent Claim for which licensing assurance cannot be obtained (e.g., an LOA is not provided or the LOA indicates that licensing assurance is not being provided) shall be referred to the Patent Committee.   “

 

But I wonder how the referral to the patent committee  is actually happening for these sorts of LOAs?  And what is the patent committee supposed to do with an LOA (not clear to me if the latter situation  would apply to  an LOA or an “accepted LOA”, the term used is just LOA) where   licensing assurance is not being provided. 

 

 

 

George T. Willingmyre
President GTW Associates

 

From: Don Wright

Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 3:32 PM

To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: [PP-DIALOG] Applicability of LOAs

 

Dear PP-Dialog participants:

 

There have been a number of discussions among IEEE standards participants concerning the applicability of LOAs.  These discussions have focused on at least the following four areas:

 

1.        How should LOAs (blankets and others) be understood in situations involving changes in ownership, control, etc. especially considering updates to the Patent Policy text?

2.       Which form of LOA is required for PARs (projects) that were already in existence when the Patent Policy text was updated on 15 March 2015?

3.       Which form of LOA is required for PARs (projects) that were started on or after 15 March 2015?

4.       How are LOAs for an amendment versus a standard interpreted?

 

PatCom has been discussing topic #1 but, at this time, has no text or other guidance to propose to further address this topic.  In this context, PatCom has reviewed not only the updated Patent Policy text but also the text in clause 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual (see https://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect6.html).

 

In regards to topics #2 and #3, PatCom notes that the text of FAQs #84 and #85 describe the effective date of the Patent Policy.  The methodology described in those FAQs is substantively consistent with the way the transition was handled with the 2007 Patent Policy update.  At this time, PatCom is proposing no changes to those FAQs or any additional FAQs on this topic.

 

Topic #4 was addressed in a separate e-mail to PP-Dialog distributed by me on 20 May 2016.

 

PatCom welcomes comments, ideas, and proposals from the PP-Dialog participants and others on these topics and looks forward to a discussion at the PatCom meeting on 29 June 2016 in Berlin Germany.  Please submit your comments, ideas, and proposals to PP-Dialog by 20 June 2016 so they may be reviewed by PatCom members and others in advance of the Berlin meeting.

 

________________________________________________________

Don Wright, President Standards Strategies, LLC 10420 Vista Hills Blvd Louisville, KY  40291 don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx +1 859-396-7812

 

2016 IEEE Standards Association President-Elect

Member, IEEE SA Standards Board, PatCom (Chair) & ProCom

Chair, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors                     

Chair, IEEE SA Nominations & Appointments Committee

Member, IEEE Nominations & Appointments Committee

Past Chair, IEEE Admission & Advancement Committee

Past Chair, INCITS Executive Board

 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7639 / Virus Database: 4591/12341 - Release Date: 06/01/16