| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Since there are being exchanged comments on IEEE-SA's general state and relevance to industry, see a few facts below, from IEEE SA management side.
IEEE-SA allows for two types of engagement: by individuals and by entities (corporations, and other legal entities).
For latter (entities), IEEE-SA has a corporate membership program.
Since here the talk is about the level of industry/corporate engagement, a good indicator to measure success or decline would be the number of corporate members over the years.
Fact is that since 2016 (that means within 20 months) the number of corporate members has increased by 64 %.
All regions (notably North America, Europe and Asia) show a strong and continuous growth, and this happens in strategic areas, beyond the traditional IEEE-SA domains.
In addition, the annual numbers for new and accomplished projects (entity or individual based) break one historic record after the other.
These 3 facts together (massive growth of corporate membership, new industry sectors and players, historic highs for number of projects) pose IEEE-SA in front of very interesting challenges, in particular how we can support this massive influx of new players and new projects, without massive recruiting.
This is our real problem right now.
Since Ron appears to be raising factual issues regarding the IEEE patent policy, I am attaching two empirical studies for further information. (I am not pasting the full text of the documents as they are quite lengthy.)
The first study, from 2017, concludes: “[T]here are many ways to assess the health and significance of a given SSO. Based on our review of the available facts, and by many measures, IEEE remains as strong, or stronger, than it has ever been.”
The second study, from 2018, concludes: “The updated data through the end of 2017 verifies our prior conclusions that contributions to IEEE standards and technical work within IEEE working groups have only increased since the updated patent policy was approved”; that “as a matter of plain fact, an increase or decrease of patents essential to IEEE standards cannot be assessed by counting LOAs. Claims to the contrary are erroneous.”; and that “suggestions that work at IEEE has been negatively affected because a few companies – none of which have been particularly active technical contributors – have chosen not to support the updated IEEE Patent Policy in a single Working Group (802.11) are demonstrably incorrect.”
Here are links to the publicly-available studies: https://www.iplytics.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/ ; https://www.iplytics.com/wp-IPlytics_2017_Patenting-and- standardization-activities-at- IEEE.pdf content/uploads/2018/04/ IPlytics_Report-on-IEEE- activities_2018.pdf
Best regards,
Dave
From: "Ron D. Katznelson" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "Ron D. Katznelson" <ron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, October 1, 2018 at 7:18 AM
To: "PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [PP-DIALOG] Comments on Item 6.1 of the PatCom Agenda
All,
Please read my comments on PatCom’s proposal for accepting LOAs under two distinct patent policies
Best,
Ron
------------------------------
------------------------- Ron D. Katznelson, Ph.D.
Vice Chair for Patents, IEEE-USA IP Committee
President, Bi-Level Technologies
1084 N El Camino Real, Suite 250
Encinitas, CA 92024
Office: 760 753-0668
Email: ron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Selected Works: http://works.bepress.com/
rkatznelson SSRN:: http://ssrn.com/Authorid=
706742
To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1