| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I’m not there participating in person so perhaps I missed some discussion that already answered this, but a couple questions for Gaelle:
Best, John Kolakowski From: Gil Ohana (gilohana) [mailto:00000b67ee67ba19-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx]
Thanks Gaelle. I appreciate you responding so quickly. So it sounds like if there was a
future change in the By-Laws, then the text you are suggesting would apply to that future change and would have the effect (if the LoA submitter wanted to take advantage of the option) of permitting the LoA holder to “grandfather” its licensing assurance
under the terms of the current patent policy. Do I understand that correctly? One issue that PatCom might usefully consider is whether we want the PatCom proposal to be a “one-time” change in response to concerns some have expressed with the updates that
became effective on March 15, 2015, rather than a general principle applicable to future changes to the By-Laws. Best regards, Gil From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Gil, That is in essence what the proposal is as it refers to the time when the project was initiated: under the previous terms of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws
which were in effect at the time the project(s)/standard(s) was initiated If the project was started after the latest policy change (2015) that option would not be selected.
Gaëlle From: Gil Ohana (gilohana) [mailto:gilohana@xxxxxxxxx]
Thanks Gaelle. Would your proposed text be available only to submitters of LoAs for IEEE-SA projects/standards that were initiated prior to March 15, 2015? Thanks in advance. Best regards, Gil
From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear All, We would like to suggest the following alternative. Rather than a negative LOA with some appended text, we propose to define an option 1e (or 1c’ ) on the form to reflect the willingness of a patent holder to license as follow: 1e)
The Submitter will grant a license under reasonable rates to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair
Discrimination under the
previous terms of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws which were in effect at the time the project(s)/standard(s) was initiated.
_____(Optional) These reasonable rates will not exceed ________________________ (e.g., percent of product price, flat fee, per unit).
_____(Optional) A sample of such a license (or material licensing terms) that is substantially similar to what the Submitter would offer is attached. _____(Optional) Such a license will include a Reciprocal Licensing requirement. The first part of the sentence is a copy of the option 1b available on the form before the 2015 change. The same apply for the two first options. The second part of the sentence is taken and slightly modified from the text of the attachment that was circulated. If acceptable the option 1d) may need to be modified to also list that additional option.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gaëlle Martin-Cocher From: Dave Ringle [mailto:d.ringle@xxxxxxxx]
Item 6.1 is attached. As always, folks are encouraged to share their thoughts/comments via the PP-dialog email list. Regards, Dave ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The 12 June 2018 PatCom meeting agenda is available at http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/patcom/agenda.pdf Regards, ****************************************************************** To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1 To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1 To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1 To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1 |