Dear PatCom,
I am re-submitting a suggestion for the FAQs that I had sent in to PatCom to be discussed (and which we did discuss) in the 28 March PatCom meeting, via this email as per instructions given during
that meeting, so that this suggestion will be duly considered by PatCom in making a decision on the FAQs related to the changes made in the patent policy that took effect on the first of January this year.
With one exception, I believe the existing FAQs are reasonable and responsive to the changes that the SA and BOG believed were necessary and appropriate, and that if PatCom is to recommend adding
the two suggested FAQs that we discussed on March 28 and were included in the patgen 6.1 document, one of them should be reconsidered and modified as indicated here.
We do not believe any other or additional changes to the FAQs are necessary or appropriate.
(New FAQ after FAQ 93 reproduced here)
xx. What does it mean when IEEE SA updates its patent policy by adding or removing text?
The IEEE SA may update the patent policy for any number of reasons, including but not limited to the fact that the previous text needed additional clarity, was duplicative,
or was encompassed by other provisions in the patent policy.
COMMENT: Stating that the IEEE-SA “may update the patent policy for any number of reasons” does not answer the question asked, because
it does not say what the updates mean. Instead, it appears to be attempting to answer a question about why the patent policy was changed, and providing a short list of hypotheticals (within a range of possibilities) instead of an answer. Respecting the answer
to the question of why it was changed, the IEEE has already stated the reason in its press release:
“These updates are intended to improve the clarity of IEEE’s standards
processes related to patented technologies, while offering more options for stakeholders.”
https://standards.ieee.org/news/ieee-announces-decision-on-its-standards-related-patent-policy/
If answering a “why” question (“What does it mean when…”) is the intent of this FAQ as it appears to be, then the question should be rewritten to reflect that more directly (perhaps rewritten
as “Why has the IEEE SA updated its patent policy effective in 2023?”). The reason previously provided in the press release is the answer
that the IEEE has already provided. I don’t believe it makes more sense to instead give hypothetical reasons the reader is expected to guess at to relate them to unnamed specific particular textual changes, additions or deletions, as this proposed FAQ
does.
The “meaning” specific additions or removals of text in the policy have been already largely addressed in FAQs 94-97, and we don’t believe that further elaboration is necessary, especially while
the fundamental “why” question remains not well articulated in the currently proposed FAQ reproduced above.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Atlass, employed by and affiliated with Qualcomm.
Michael Atlass
Sr. Director, Legal Counsel
California Registered In-House Counsel
Mobile# +1-858-334-8463
From:
Ola Adekunle <000016c7141ea232-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 1:11 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [PP-DIALOG] Google’s Comments re IEEE FAQ Revisions
WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
Dear Colleagues,
I am writing to support the proposed new FAQ text, as reflected currently at
https://app.box.com/s/rh0bbs3uia605v4hs078rchv453q49nw.
The proposed FAQ addressing injunctions correctly notes that the Patent Policy does not purport to create any new authorizations or permissions beyond those applicable under national/regional laws. While this should be clear from the Policy’s language itself,
the new FAQ text is nevertheless helpful and important for avoiding any potential misunderstanding or misapplication. It should be adopted.
The proposed FAQ addressing updates to the Patent Policy also is helpful and should be adopted. While different IEEE participants may have different views on the best policy approaches, it is clear that IEEE’s clarifications and updates to its Patent Policy
can occur for any number of reasons, and may not be indicative of any substantive change.
I thank PatCom for its work to bring additional clarity, and for the opportunity to submit these comments.
Best regards,
Ola Adekunle
Google LLC
________________________________________________________________________
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