Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [PP-DIALOG] PatCom: Report Out from the 27 November 2018 Executive Session meeting

Sorry, David (D). I had intended to respond  to David Ringle and was not directing the email specifically to you.

 

Nevertheless, am happy to provide some content regarding your response.

 

I want to see that the minutes captured authorship without implying personal opinion when an agency position was presented. If you were at the meeting, the way outside counsel presented it, the personal opinion implication was objected to and I am concerned that it should not be carried forward in the minutes without  at least my concern for the misconstruction risk being highlighted by my email to the PP-DIALOG recipients.

 

Would be willing to discuss further at the meeting if PatCom has interest in continuing this discussion, or on the side, if you would like to have a personal discussion.

 

From: Dave Djavaherian <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Dave Djavaherian <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 1:54 PM
To: "PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] PatCom: Report Out from the 27 November 2018 Executive Session meeting

 

Thanks for your comments Michael.

 

Responding to your point 3 – I do not think it makes sense for PatCom to seek to log every statement of every government official in its minutes.  If that was the approach, then surely participants would be obligated to submit information regarding the current views of other Federal agencies, such as the the FTC, as embodied in their recent attested court filings, or the rulings of courts, or other materials.  Policy advocacy, whether by an individual or by a particular government agency, may or may not reflect applicable law, as embodied in statute and case materials in any event.

 

From: Michael Atlass <matlass@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Michael Atlass <matlass@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 1:10 PM
To: "PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] PatCom: Report Out from the 27 November 2018 Executive Session meeting

 

Dear David,

 

Thanks for sending this agenda and minutes of the June meeting. It does give me some questions to address on the reflector, so thank you for this opportunity.

 

 

  1. Regarding the item in the December meeting agenda 6.1:
    1. It may be valuable to know how the issues raised in 6.1 of the June meeting (reported as no action) taken in the are related to the agenda item 6.1 in the December PatCom meeting agenda.
    2. For example, were both initiatives intended to resolve a similar issue such as limiting the potential for negative LOAs? It seems to me more likely that approach of 6.1 in the agenda rather than the earlier offer to declare under the old policy approach broached in the June meeting is actually likely to generate more negative LOAs. If that’s not the reason for the suggestion, would like to understand what it is, in order to make more useful commentary if possible. Perhaps this can be addressed by PatCom at the meeting.

 

  1. With respect to the specifics of the proposal D.1 on the December PatCom meeting agenda, the form language recommended for D.1.d might be beneficially modified as below, in order to maintain the avoidance of an obligation to do a patent search, recognized in the policy:

 

D.1.d: The Submitter is unwilling or unable to grant licenses according to the provisions of either

a or b above or to agree that it will not enforce its Essential Patent Claims as described in c

above. This statement applies only to the Patent Claims of which the Submitter is aware, identified in E.1 below.

 

 

  1. Regarding the meeting minutes from June: Why in the meeting minutes are the speeches by Delrahim are not reported as US Government or at least DoJ positions? There was discussion at the meeting on this very question. Those speeches were not personal opinions, and I thought that was understood by the members of PatCom, and yet the record reflects the potential misimpression.

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael.

 

 

 

From: Dave Ringle <d.ringle@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:02 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [PP-DIALOG] PatCom: Report Out from the 27 November 2018 Executive Session meeting

 

PatCom further discussed the proposal from agenda item 6.1 of the June PatCom meeting and took no action on the proposal. 

 

The 03 December 2018 PatCom meeting agenda remains unchanged. (See https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/governance/patcom/agenda.pdf)

 

Regards,

******************************************************************
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
******************************************************************

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