[PP-DIALOG] 2nd try: InterDigital comments on FAQs
Dear Colleagues,
This post is to record my comments on the proposed new FAQs that we discussed during the PatCom meeting on March 28. These comments relate to the proposed FAQ between FAQs #93 and #94. The text proposed by PatCom is:
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.
I agree with the goal of increasing clarity, but the proposed response decreases clarity in my view. The items in the list of reasons are all minor and non-substantive (“clarity”, “duplicative”, and “encompassed”), and suggest that the catch-all phrase of “any number of reasons” should be interpreted to include only items that are similar to the list that follows. That interpretation would preclude the possibility that updates were made for substantive reasons.
The problem is that this would not be accurate in my view given that there were substantive changes in the 2015 patent policy amendments and in the 2023 patent policy amendments.
Fortunately, there is an easy fix for this problem. I propose that the FAQ answer be amended as shown below (adding ", or that the previous text needed to be substantively changed" to the end) to reflect the fact that updates to the patent policy could indeed be substantive, as well as minor:
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, or that the previous text needed to be substantively changed.
I am sympathetic to the concern, expressed during PatCom, that the motivation for the proposed FAQ was to clarify that changes could have been made to the patent policy for minor reasons. However, only providing minor reasons seems to imply there are never any non-minor or substantive changes being made which is clearly not true. So, my proposed edit preserves the list of minor reasons and, I believe, satisfies this concern. At the same time, it also makes the FAQ answer more accurate and clearer as substantive changes have been made in 2015 and 2023.
Best regards,
Bran Dorini, employed by and affiliated with InterDigital
Director, Senior Standards Counsel | InterDigital
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1