Hi Dave,
These are certainly interesting statistics. In an effort towards transparency, it would be useful if you could provide more granularity and visibility into these data (and where to access the data). For example:
- What is the demographic (type or size of companies, geographical location of corp headquarters, industry, type of corporation, etc.) of new corporate members, and how has that evolved
over the months / years (well before 2015)? Out of ignorance: when was the corporate membership program established?
- What are the strategic areas you are referring to, and how do growth rates vary across areas over the years (again, even before 2015)?
- What is the distribution of new and accomplished projects among technical areas or societies, and how have these projects evolved over the years (again, prior to 2015 as well)?
Other statistically relevant details could be provided to shed more light. For example, attendance and demographics of attendees at meetings, geographical distribution and growth, etc. Thank you for any additional feedback that you might
be able to provide.
As an aside, I am curious as to why your reply to Dave Djavaherian was received through the reflector before Dave’s actual email. Any clue?
Best regards,
-Matteo
From: Dave Ringle <d.ringle@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 2:43 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] Comments on Item 6.1 of the PatCom Agenda
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.
******************************************************************
David L. Ringle
Director, IEEE-SA Governance
IEEE Standards Association
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854-4141 USA
TEL: +1 732 562 3806
FAX: +1 732 875 0524
EMAIL: d.ringle@xxxxxxxx
******************************************************************
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Dave Djavaherian <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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/IPlytics_2017_Patenting-and-standardization-activities-at-IEEE.pdf;
https://www.iplytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IPlytics_Report-on-IEEE-activities_2018.pdf
Best regards,
Dave
All,
Please read my comments on PatCom’s proposal for accepting LOAs under two distinct patent policies
http://bit.ly/PatComPolicy
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
To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1
|