[PP-DIALOG] IEEE LOA Form -- Nonassert
Can some one explain
to me why the RAND-RF and RAND-royalty licensing alternatives in the form
provide for a "reciprocity" option while the "nonenforce"
choice of 1(c) does not include an optional box for "reciprocity"
(or defensive termination)?
I understand the
differences between RF license and nonassert, and that some software regimes
appreciate the nonassert. Nonetheless, I do not understand why IEEE
does not allow for the fairness of reciprocity in this model. Is
it intended, then, that the submitter choose 1(d) to provide
for defensive termination "reciprocity"?
In that 1(c) is
"without conditions" and there is no RAND or mention of "reasonableness"
of terms, it is not clear what the status of "reciprocity" is
with this choice. The risk in this choice seems significant enough
to warrant some explanation or notice in the form and/or bylaws/FAQs or
inclusion of the box for this choice. [ I do not see where in the
Bylaws or FAQs that this distinction between RF and nonassert is made.
Kindly advise if I missed something.]
Thanks.
Marc Sandy Block,
Counsel, Intellectual Property Law
1B05 / North Castle Drive / Armonk, NY 10504
msb@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone 914-765-4295); fax 914-765-4524
PREPARED BY IBM ATTORNEY / PRIVILEGE REVIEW REQUIRED
This e-mail and its attachments, if any, may contain information that is
private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client, solicitor-client
or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please
delete it from your system without copying it and notify me of the misdirection
by reply e-mail.
To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1