I support the proposal.
Mark A. Lemley William H Neukom Professor, Stanford Law School Of counsel, Lex Lumina PLLC On Apr 18, 2023, at 7:48 PM, Gil Ohana (gilohana) <00000b67ee67ba19-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Cisco agrees with the comments from Dave Djavaherian on behalf of Juniper and Helene Workman on behalf of Apple. We support the addition of the proposed FAQs.
Best regards,
Gil Ohana
From: Dave Djavaherian <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 4:57 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [PP-DIALOG] Juniper's Comments re IEEE FAQ Text
Colleagues,
I support that the two new proposed FAQs should be adopted by PatCom.
As has been expressed by some of the other commenters so far, both proposed FAQs accurately address how the Patent Policy functions, and provide important clarity to avoid potential misapplication of the Patent Policy in the future. The draft text correctly
makes clear that nothing in the Patent Policy would (or could) purport to authorize injunctive relief. Rather, the Patent Policy functions to contractually restrict the use of injunctions despite that such relief might otherwise be available under national/regional
law. The draft text also correctly explains that updates to the Patent Policy can occur for many reasons, such that changes to the policy text may not imply any change to its substantive application.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments.
Sincerely,
Affiliated with Juniper Networks, Inc.
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
|