| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I readily admit that I’m not fully-versed on IEEE corporate membership benefits and thus likely motivations that various entities might have for joining IEEE. But regarding the tremendous growth Dave R cites in membership and projects, I am left wondering if all that growth in members and projects might be happening in areas that are not patent-intensive. If that were the case, then the growth would seem to be likely unrelated to the impact of the 2015 IPR Policy changes.
I also find myself also curious about the geographic distribution of these new IEEE members. For example, what if we were told that some overwhelming percentage of the new corporate members were from India, China and southeast Asian nations? As those are the areas of the world where a large majority of electronic device and equipment manufacturing occurs, would this suggest an influx of standards implementers rather than technology contributors? Although of course the two categories are not mutually exclusive, there are certainly a lot more companies in the former category than the latter.
Dave R’s cited statistics also were qualified as being “since 2016” and “within 20 months.” So I presume we’re looking at 2017 and 2018 only. Could there be some statistically unusual rise in corporate memberships in 2017 and 2018 simply because there was an unusual and unprecedented drop in corporate memberships in the years leading up to and when the IPR Policy was changed? I see perhaps some relevant data in the Table on page 8 of the second IPLytics study that Dave D posted. It does appear that there was a modest drop in corporate memberships from 2013 to 2014 (I assume the numbers reflect the membership at the end of the year, so 2014’s number would be just prior to when the new policy took effect in early 2015). Then a modest rise to end of 2015, basically no change to end of 2016, and more significant growth to the end of 2017. So most of the growth seems to occur years later than the policy change, so can we reliably connect the two?
To help value the statistics and see whether they really do have relevance for countering Ron K’s assertions, I agree that we could benefit from some more background information and granularity for the statistics Dave R cites. I’d also be interested to hear if Ron K has thoughts on the IPLytics studies that Dave D posted, as they seem mainly focused on attempting to debunk his interpretation of their own data.
Looking forward to a robust discussion of all this at the next PatCom,
John Kolakowski
From: Gil Ohana (gilohana) <00000b67ee67ba19-dmarc-
request@xxxxxxxx >
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 5:19 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] Comments on Item 6.1 of the PatCom Agenda
Thanks Matteo. If, as an engineer, you found all data to be equally useful you would be an engineer that wastes a lot of time chasing down blind alleys. While the decision whether and how to respond to your request is not mine to make, I suspect that the IEEE staff who would need to respond will be more interested in doing so if you could explain why the information you are requesting is important to the question of whether the IEEE-SA continues to succeed. So I reiterate my request.
Best regards,
Gil
From: Matteo Sabattini <matteo.sabattini@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 2:14 PM
To: Gil Ohana (gilohana) <gilohana@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [PP-DIALOG] Comments on Item 6.1 of the PatCom Agenda
Hi Gil,
As an engineer, I find data interesting and useful, especially to understand trends.
Best regards,
-Matteo
Sent from VMware Boxer
On Oct 1, 2018 5:06 PM, "Gil Ohana (gilohana)" <gilohana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Matteo,
I will leave it to IEEE staff to decide whether they can provide the information you request. I am curious, though, as to the relevance of the information you seek. Can you explain why information like where new corporate members that have joined the IEEE CAG are based is relevant? Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Gil
From: Matteo Sabattini <matteo.sabattini@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 1:36 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] Comments on Item 6.1 of the PatCom Agenda
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/ ; 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
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