We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byMaya Brown
Modified over 2 years ago
1Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. PWG IP Section Investigate an Update?
2Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Background Back in mid-September… SC agrees the PWG needs to update its Intellectual Property Policy The goal is to align the PWG's IP Policy with what is state-of-the-art in the industry for like organizations and then get the updated policy approved by the membership This update will be done in an ad-hoc group of SC members and any other interested PWG member participant And in mid-October… The SC is considering the update of the PWG IP policy because it has fallen behind current industry trends Harry Lewis volunteered to lead up this effort, but acknowledged it will take him a while before having a proposal to present Approach is to reference current statements used from other groups such as CIP4/JDF, IEEE ISTO, and Bluetooth SIG ACTION ITEM: Create a comparison between the PWG's IP Policy and the IEEE's current policy for use in the update to the PWG's IP Policy
3Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. … but lets not lose track Is just being out-of-date really bad? Why? What specific problem(s) need solving? Is anyone complaining? If so, what are their concrete issues?
4Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Some specifics (1) Recently (last year? 2006?) one member company had expressed when they renewed their membership that they didnt like the way the policy was worded. [Not sure of the explicit complaint.] … but they joined anyway.
5Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Some specifics (2) An issue mentioned related to the actual requirements for making known IP that might be related to a PWG WG. (Is a participant required to do a patent search or not? The intent is not – but at least one member company interprets the language another way.)
6Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Some specifics (3) The most obvious change is that the policy currently discusses Proposed Standards which we don't have anymore. We have Candidate Standards and Standards
7Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. An option to consider We could do the following: go through a long analysis of PWG vs. IEEE documents identify all the clever things contained in IEEE policy that PWG doesnt include update the PWG document to include the items OR we could jump to the end a bit faster: acknowledge the time, effort, and completeness of the IEEE document and the cleverness of its authors skip the comparison effort adopt the IEEE policy as written – with appropriate modifications for PWG-unique terms, etc. look for any onerous sections/text and delete/modify as necessary to gain 100%(!!) consensus
8Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Ownership of Rights (1) PWG All patents, copyrights, or other intellectual property owned or created by any Member or members affiliates (hereinafter Member or Associate) outside the PWG or its work within the PWG shall remain the property of that Member or Associate thereunder and shall not be affected in any way by the Member or Associates participation in the PWG. IEEE no counterpart? (perhaps intentional?)
9Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Ownership of Rights (2) PWG The PWG may, through its activities, generate intellectual property, and license such property to the Members and/or Associates on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, conditions and prices; provided, however, that Members and Associates receive more favorable pricing than non- Members or non- Associates. IEEE no counterpart?
10Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Ownership of Rights (3) PWG All information and materials, and all copyrights thereto, contributed by Members and Associates and their representatives and incorporated into a PWG Standard and Specification (here after the Standard) shall be owned by the contributing Member or Associate. The contributing Member or Associate shall grant PWG and its Members and Associates an irrevocable license to use, reproduce, modify, distribute and sublicense the copyrighted work(s) incorporated in the Standard on non-discriminatory basis and within reasonable terms and conditions. Notwithstanding the above, any intellectual property independently created by a Member or Associate, but not incorporated into a PWG standard, should remain the exclusive property of the original owner and no mandatory license should be imposed. IEEE If the IEEE receives notice that a [Proposed] IEEE Standard may require the use of a potential Essential Patent Claim, the IEEE shall request licensing assurance, on the IEEE Standards Board approved Letter of Assurance form, from the patent holder or patent applicant. But what if no notice is received? [In my interpretation, the notice seems optional – but it probably isnt supposed to be.]
11Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Disclosure (1) PWG Participants in the standard setting procedure shall disclose any known patents whose use would be required for compliance with a proposed PWG standard. Prior to PWG's approval of the proposed standard, the PWG should receive a written patent statement from the patent holder as described below in section 1.3. IEEE [If notified, the IEEE will request a Letter of Assurance.]
12Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Disclosure (2) PWG The PWG is not in a position to give authoritative or comprehensive information about evidence, validity or scope of patents or similar rights, but it is desirable that any available information should be disclosed. Therefore, all PWG members shall, from the outset, draw PWG's attention to any relevant patents (hereinafter defined) either their own or of other organizations including their Affiliates (hereinafter defined) that are known to the PWG members or any of their Affiliates, although PWG is unable to verify the validity of any such information. IEEE In order for IEEE's patent policy to function efficiently, individuals participating in the standards development process: (a) shall inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of the holder of any potential Essential Patent Claims of which they are personally aware and that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance, owned or controlled by the participant or the entity the participant is from, employed by, or otherwise represents; and (b) should inform the IEEE (or cause the IEEE to be informed) of any other holders of such potential Essential Patent Claims that are not already the subject of an existing Letter of Assurance.
13Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Relevant Patent Conditions (1) PWG If a Proposed PWG Standard is submitted to the PWG, three different situations may arise with respect to the relevant Patents: (1) In the event the PWG Proposed Standard is adopted to become a PWG Standard, the patent holder waives his rights under the Relevant Patents owned by him and hence, the Proposed PWG Standard is freely accessible to everybody; no particular conditions, no royalties due, etc., with respect to such Relevant Patents. The PWG Standard means any PWG specifications that are officially published by PWG after October 1, IEEE - LOA The Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license Patent Claims… a.Submitter will grant a license without compensation to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination. c. Submitter without conditions will not enforce any present or future Essential Patent Claims against any person or entity making … such a compliant implementation.
14Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Relevant Patent Conditions (2) PWG … three different situations may arise with respect to the relevant Patents: (2) In the event a PWG Proposed Standard is adopted as a PWG Standard, the patent holder is not prepared to waive his rights under the Relevant Patents owned by him but would be willing to grant licenses to other parties on a non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions, provided a similar grant under the licensee's patents within the scope of the license granted to the licensee is made available. Such license grants are left to the parties concerned. IEEE - LOA The Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license Patent Claims… b.Submitter will grant a license under reasonable rates to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination.
15Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Relevant Patent Conditions (3) PWG … three different situations may arise with respect to the relevant Patents: (3) In the event the Proposed Standard is adopted to become a PWG Standard, and the patent holder is not willing to comply with the provisions of either paragraph 10.3 (1) or (2), in such a case the Proposal cannot be established as a PWG Standard. IEEE - LOA The Submitter may own, control, or have the ability to license Patent Claims… d.Submitter is unwilling or unable to grant licenses according to the provisions of either a or b above or to agree that it will not enforce its Essential Patent Claims as described in c above.
16Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Patent Statement (1) PWG Whichever option from among paragraphs (1), (2) or (3) is chosen, any PWG member must provide a written statement to be filed on behalf of itself and its Affiliates at the PWG secretariat with respect to the Relevant Patents that are owned by the PWG member or any of its Affiliates and known to the PWG member or any of its Affiliates. This statement must not include additional provisions, conditions, or any other exclusion clauses in excess of what is provided for each case in paragraphs 10.3 (1), (2) and (3). IEEE [The IEEE will request a Letter of Assurance.]
17Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Patent Statement (2) PWG If no Relevant Patents that are owned by the PWG member or any of its Affiliates are known to the PWG member or any of its Affiliates, an affirmative disclosure to that effect must be submitted before the end of the Patent Statement deadline in lieu of the Patent Statement. Any Relevant Patents that are owned by the PWG member or any of its Affiliates and are found after the Patent Statement deadline are automatically subject to either paragraph 10.3 (1) or (2) as described above. IEEE [The IEEE will request a Letter of Assurance.]
18Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Patent Statement (3) PWG A Patent Statement should be submitted by all the PWG members for all Relevant Patents which are known to the PWG members and their Affiliates and are owned by the PWG members or their Affiliate [should be?] IEEE [The IEEE will request a Letter of Assurance.]
19Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Patent Notice PWG Further, a Patent Notice should be submitted by all the PWG members for Relevant Patents which are known to the PWG members and their Affiliates and are not owned nor controlled by the PWG members or their Affiliate IEEE [The IEEE will request a Letter of Assurance.]
20Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Non-Confidentiality (1) PWG The participation in the PWG by the Members and the Associates and their appointed representatives shall be on a non-confidential basis; however, a PWG Member may with the approval of the Steering Committee, wherein such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, enter into written confidentiality agreements with all other PWG Members which restricts the dissemination of specified confidential information and/or materials provided by any of such Member, to Persons who are not Members or Associates. IEEE ???
21Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted differences – Non-Confidentiality (2) PWG Subject only to valid patents and copyrights, all PWG Members and Associates shall be free to use all information received or publicly disclosed from the PWG, its Members or Associates in connection with the normal business including the processes described herein, without obligation regardless of markings including but not limited to Proprietary or Confidential. IEEE ???
22Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Noted PWG deficiencies – Items that IEEE addresses* 1) Essential patents held by an affiliate -- does a letter of assurance bind the affiliate? 2) Notice to the transferee of the existence of an LOA when a patent is sold or transferred. 3) What due diligence is required when a patent holder states he hold no essential patents. 4) The IEEE allows the disclosure of licensing terms, rates, and conditions at the time assurance is provided. The PWG does not. 5) Who reads the assurances provided and determines that they comply with the policy? 6) I don't believe there is specific language describing how assurance received by the PWG are to be made available. etc., etc., etc. * submitted by Don Wright
23Copyright © 2007, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Next Step(s)? What approach to take? Start with PWG document and modify Start with IEEE documents and modify Which changes to make? Whats critical, nice, unnecessary, undesired? How far do we go? What will determine enough?
PWG Instructions for the WG Chair At Each Meeting, the Working Group Chair shall: Show slides #2 and #3 of this presentation Advise the WG membership that:
2/22/08IEEE 1733 Face-to-Face Sandy, Utah 1 IEEE 1733 AVB L3 Transport Protocol Suman Sharma
Doc.: IEEE /0635r0 Submission July 2005 Andrew Myles, CiscoSlide 1 Wireless WG response to proposed 802.1AM PAR & 5 criteria Notice:
Doc.: IEEE /0495r3 Submission May 2009 Bruce Kraemer, MarvellSlide 1 +1 (321) Marvell Lane, Santa Clara, CA, Name Company.
1Copyright © 2008, Printer Working Group. All rights reserved. Web-based Imaging Management System Working Group Printer Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting.
Patent Strategy Cross- licensing Marc S. Adler 2009 Advanced Licensing Institute at Pierce Law January 2009.
Footer text (edit in View : Header and Footer) The ETSI IPR Policy Successfully addressing the new challenges Dr. Michael Fröhlich Legal Affairs Director.
Drafting Win-Win Startup Licenses July 25, 2012 Pasadena, CA Cambridge, MA Naples, FL Stephen P. Rothman and Sean Brady.
IP Audit "We're in an object-oriented, outsourced, and open-sourced world, and organizations are anxious to take steps to ensure that the software they.
Doc: IEEE 802/xxx DRAFT UNAPPROVED DRAFTIEEE 802 LMSCSlide 1 September 2006 IEEE 802 LMSC recommendation to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 for the review of &
Ethics for Alaskas Executive Branch A Self-Guided Training Tool.
March Technical Documentation License Agreement (Standard) READ THIS! This is a legal agreement between Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) and.
Licensing Intellectual Property Fraser Clemens Martin & Miller LLC Patent, Trademark, Copyright & Intellectual Property Counsel Perrysburg, Ohio Detroit,
Workshop on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Creating new protections for registrants.
Doc.: ec INTL Submission to SC6 January 2014 IEEE 802Slide 1 IEEE 802 Response to FDIS comments on IEEE 802.1AE and IEEE 802.1X 16 January 2014.
© 2006 Open Grid Forum GridRPC Interoperability Test Response to comments Yusuke Tanimura.
Nov. 14, 2005 C /81Chair, IEEE Opening November 2005 Plenary Session #17 Jerry Upton- Chair Gang Wu – Procedural.
SEARCH ORIENTATION. The Recruitment Handbook Orientation to the Search Process For a printer friendly version of The Recruitment Handbook, click here.
10 Steps to Reduce Social Media Risks Richard B. Biagi Daniel J. Schaeffer Jeremy M. Roe N EAL & M C D EVITT, LLC.
ISO/DIS 9001:2008 versus ISO 9001:2000 August 2008 CER Business Line - Peter Bonnaerens.
Protecting IP Rights Under Federal Grants Richard W. OehlerEric A. Aaserud Tel: (206) Tel: (208)
July 2010 Notes on IEEE 802 Rules Review IEEE 802 Presentation Submission Template (Rev. 9) Document Number: ec EC Date Submitted:
GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS GEORGIA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS - LAWS AND RULES ATLANTA CHAPTER – IEEE INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS.
Doc.: IEEE /0006r0 Submission March 2005 Steve Shellhammer, Intel CorporationSlide 1 What is a CA document? Notice: This document has been prepared.
International Accounting Standard 27 CONSOLIDATEDAND SEPARATE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Presented By: Adeel Ahmed Chughtai ACA, ACMA.
O AK R IDGE N ATIONAL L ABORATORY U. S. D EPARTMENT OF E NERGY STCU Guidance and Procedures September 27-28, 2005 Judson R. Hightower Associate General.
Jeffrey M. Tonks YCPARMIA RISK TRANSFER SEMINAR YCPARMIA TRAINING 2006 Learn more about us at:
1 Certificates of Insurance Webinar Tuesday, July 19, 2011 Viewing Instructions: 1.Slides will advance automatically. 2.To advance manually, double click.
Tutorial on intellectual property rights (IPRs) Antoine Dore Legal Officer ITU Legal Affairs Unit Phone: Tutorial.
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.