| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear David, Dear Colleagues, Please find below the preliminary Orange comments on the Call for Comments, for consideration at the IEEE PATCOM meeting today.
Orange would also appreciate any further explanations/background on the contents of the current choices and on the collation of the responses to the BoG.
We support the addition of a clear and clean 4th option that reverts to the IPR Policy in force prior to 15th March 2015.
On this basis, the changes adopted in the 2015 IPR Policy could be re-introduced as additional and optional features to the previous IPR Policy. This would enable each Declarant to select clearly under which specific
definition, terms and conditions it is prepared to negotiate a license for its SEP to a particular standard. Providing this feature would enhance transparency of LOAs (and permit to report their contents more realistically) and avoid contradictory beliefs/expectations
on the basis of Positive or Negative LOAs. Indeed, submitting a Negative LOA is the only option available today to Declarants who cannot agree that the whole package of ambiguous terms and conditions embedded in the current LOA, IPR Policy and FAQ actually
matches with their RAND licensing offer for their SEPs. This remains for further study and subject to discussion and possible consensus.
Many thanks for your consideration. Best regards, Serge Serge RAES,
F-92320 Chatillon France Tel : +33 1 5739 6007 -----Message d'origine----- Dear David, Dear All, Fraunhofer would appreciate having some further background provided in relation to the Options presented during the PatCom meeting today. Regarding an express mention to the fourth Option, we understand that this can be mentioned in any event with other comments. It is acknowledged, nonetheless, that it would be sensible to have this fourth Option expressly set out in
the Call for Comments, as input on this could assist the Board of Governors make an informed decision on the appropriate approach to the IEEE SA Patent Policy, having considered all feasible Options available. Yours sincerely, Stefanie ----- Kind regards / Mit freundlichem Gruss, Stefanie Mielert Rechtsanwältin Fraunhofer Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V./ Fraunhofer Institut für Integrierte Schaltungen IIS Am Wolfsmantel 33 * 91058 Erlangen *
http://www.fraunhofer.de <http://www.fraunhofer.de/> Phone: +49 (0) 9131 776 6137 Mobile: +49 (0) 173 929 6369 mailto:
stefanie.mielert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Am 20.09.21, 21:30 schrieb "Kolakowski, John (Nokia - US)" <john.kolakowski@xxxxxxxxx>: Reversion to the pre-2015 policy has been our expressed preference for quite some time (essentially ever since the 2015 changes were enacted). Accordingly, we would also support Dina's suggestion for this option to be part of the
commenting process. I recognize that this might not mesh explicitly with PatCom's "mandate" from the BOG that precipitated the process. But, the Call for Comments does note that the comments are going to be "compiled and provided to the BOG," and the BOG
will of course ultimately make whatever decisions it wants, so it should hear of views on all reasonable options. It would seem sensible to discuss this at this week's PatCom meeting as well. I might also suggest that a little more explanation about what is meant by the different options could be helpful, and that could be provided at the PatCom meeting. In particular, it would be good to specifically know (1) what is
within the scope of proposed options (ii)(a) and (ii)(b), and (2) what is meant under the first bullet point of option (iii). Specifically for the latter, wouldn't an LOA filer heretofore have always had the ability to choose whether it would seek or not
seek Prohibitive Orders in accordance with the current wording of the Patent Policy? If this is meant to be an option that was not previously available, does this mean some sort of new written optional commitment within the LOA to refrain from seeking prohibitive
orders? Or is this meant to be an option for those who made commitments before the new policy went into effect? Or is this meant to give an ability to "opt out" of the Prohibitive Order requirements if desired? It seems that there are multiple reasonable
ways to interpret this, so further guidance might be appropriate so you don't get a lot of misdirected comments. Thanks, John Kolakowski -----Original Message----- From: Dina Kallay <000012ef4164abe3-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:31 AM To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] Call for Comments Dear David, Dear all, I am pleased to see IEEE-SA progress in the much-needed review of its 2015 patent policy changes (as amended six times thereafter). In November 2020, together with multiple other signatories affiliated with IEEE-SA corporate members, I wrote to IEEE-SA explaining why rescinding all the 2015 IEEE patent policy changes, i.e., reverting back to the consistent policy
that was in effect until 14 March 2015, would be in the best interest of IEEE-SA. Hence, I am surprised not to see that option as a "stand alone" option in this recent call for comments, while the opposite proposal of "keeping all the 2015 changes" appears
as option 1. The PatCom process that led to this call for public comments was neither open nor transparent. I was not privy to the development of this call and don't know who was. This announcement therefore was first opportunity to weigh in,
and we still have sufficient time for parties to consider developing and filing comments.
Given the above, and since the stated goal is selecting the most appropriate approach for the IEEE-SA patent policy, would PatCom please add a "stand alone" option 4 of "Removing all 2015 policy changes, i.e., reverting to the patent
policy in effect on 14 March 2015"? If IEEE-SA chooses such tested and proven path it could, of course, consider pros and cons of additional optional features thereto, if any, at the choice of each LOA submitter.
Thanks, Dina Kallay, SJD Head of Antitrust (IPR, Americas & Asia-Pacific) Ericsson -----Original Message----- From: Law, David <dlaw@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 6:02 AM To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] Call for Comments Dear pp-dialog, It has come to my attention that the URL to the spreadsheet in my email below may not function correctly as a hyperlink. The URL in the attached letter functions correctly, as should this hyperlink: <https://grouper.ieee.org/groups/pp-dialog/call_for_comments/PatCom_call_for_comments.xlsx>. Thanks and best regards, David Law IEEE-SA PatCom Chair -----Original Message----- From: Law, David <dlaw@xxxxxxx>
Sent: 25 August 2021 00:23 To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [PP-DIALOG] Call for Comments Dear pp-dialog, Please find attached a Call for Comments from the IEEE SA Standards Board Patent Committee (PatCom). Responses to this Call for Comments shall be submitted by completing the spreadsheet accessible at <https://grouper.ieee.org/groups/pp-dialog/call_for_comments/PatCom_call_for_comments.xlsx>
and submitting the spreadsheet to <pp-dialog@xxxxxxxx>. The deadline for submitting responses to this Call for Comments is Friday, 15th October 2021 23:59 UTC-12. Thanks and best regards, David Law IEEE-SA PatCom Chair ________________________________________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1 |