From: d.ringle@ieee.org Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 10:46 AM To: psa@ansi.org Subject: ExSC 6658 - comments - Ringle ----- Forwarded by David Ringle/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE on 10/04/2006 10:43 AM ----- David Ringle/STDS/STAFF /US/IEEE To Patricia Griffin 09/20/2006 11:57 AM cc acaldas@ansi.org Subject Re: Revisions to Patent Policy: Public Review Period(Document link: David Ringle) Patty, Here are some comments. You can consider them as my public review comments - from Dave Ringle, interested individual. Comments: A) In 3.1.1 (b), it states 'license to such essential patent ...'. The 'such' does not appear to be related to anything in 3.1.1, but possibly to wording back in 3.1. I would suggest deleting 'such' and leaving it as 'license to essential patent ...' B) This is an argument that I doubt I will ever win, but.... 3.1.1 (b) (ii) is actually a subset of 3.1.1 (b) (i) and is unnecessary. [royalty-free is a subset of RAND]. Suggestion is to eliminate 3.1.1 (b) (i) and 3.1.1 (b) (ii) and replace with: "(b) assurance that a license to essential patent(s) will be made available to the applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing the standard and that such license will be offered under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination" C) You will note that I have modified the wording slightly [above]. I changed it from 'patent claims(s)' to 'patent(s)'. There is no utility for an SDO in going down to the level of specific claims. All changes to the patent policy related to 'claims' should be backed out to simply 'patents'. I still see this as potentially creating problems. What if a patent holder states that it will license [under RAND] patent 12345678 claims 1-5, but it turns out the claim 7 is essential? The SDO will not have an LoA on file related to that claim. The wording should revert back to being concerned with patents or, possibly, could be restated in such a manner so that licensing assurance can be down to the level of specific claims but the patent holder will grant a license for any essential patent claim(s) included in the noted patent(s). D) In 3.1.3, it states 'set forth in b above ...'. It should state 'set forth in 3.1.1 (b) above...' Regards, **************************************************************** David L. Ringle Program Manager - Governance, Policy & Procedures IEEE Standards Activities Department 445 Hoes Lane Piscataway, NJ 08854 TEL: +1 732 562 3806 FAX: +1 732 875 0524 d.ringle@ieee.org **************************************************************** Patricia Griffin To ALL PG Members , IPRPC 09/20/2006 09:04 AM cc James Pauley , Anne Caldas , Harvey Rosenfeld Subject Revisions to Patent Policy: Public Review Period To the Members of the Patent Group and IPRPC: Please be advised that I presented the proposed changes to the ANSI Patent Policy contained in LB 501 to ANSI's Executive Standards Council (ExSC) last week and the ExSC approved them for publication. (There was one dissenting vote from ASME.) Here is the announcement that will appear in Standards Action on September 22, 2006. There will be a 30 day public comment period and comments will be received by October 23, 2006. We will discuss such comments, if any, at the upcoming Patent Group meeting on November 8, 2006. Best regards, Patty Patricia A. Griffin Vice President and General Counsel American National Standards Institute 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor New York, N.Y. 10036 Tel: 212-642-4954 Fax: 212-840-2298 Email: pgriffin@ansi.org [attachment "6658 (3).doc" deleted by David Ringle/STDS/STAFF/US/IEEE]