| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I support the two proposed changes, which increase clarity. Among standards organizations, IEEE’s 2015 policy was at the forefront of clarity, which resulted, as Brian Scarpelli and I wrote, in “the IEEE’s standardization work – as measured
by approval, technical influence, membership and the initiation of new projects – [being] more successful than ever.”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3934899. Apple’s comments describe misconceptions about IEEE’s recent changes. Given how contested issues of Prohibitive Orders are in this setting, it is essential to be as lucid as possible. Although the current rules are not as clear as they
were under the 2015 Policy (in adopting a subjective determination of willingness for licensees and allowing consideration of licenses determined under threat of a Prohibitive Order), the proposed FAQs’ increased clarity (e.g., not allowing Prohibitive Orders
not authorized by national/regional laws) will have significant benefits. Michael A. Carrier Distinguished Professor, Rutgers Law School Co-Director, Rutgers Institute for Information Policy and Law 217 North 5th Street Camden, NJ 08102 To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1 |