Ernest Prabhakar (Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:23 PM) wrote:
> Under the circumstances, is there really any hard evidence that this
> is something the community *must* deal with, or is it simply a "gut
> feeling" based on how other standards organizations handle
> such issues?
Sorry, one more reference, which was burried in the IPR page:
===
Qualcomm's own general counsel, Lou Lupin, was "gratified" by the finding on
the USPTO issues, but less happy about the disclosure
ruling, stating:
We are very troubled, however, by the judge's finding that an obligation to
make IPR declarations may arise in the standard
setting environment from members' 'understandings' not expressed in the
standard setting organization's written IPR policy. Such a
rule would leave companies whose businesses require them to participate in
standardization efforts in the untenable position of
having to guess what their disclosure obligations might be. We respectfully
disagree with the court's reasoning that strict
compliance with a standards body's written IPR policy is not enough. We also
believe that, even if such an unwritten obligation
could arise when the standards body members all considered themselves to be so
obligated, all evidence here was that the JVT
participants did not.
===
This is from the article "Federal Court Rules Against Qualcomm in a "Son of
Rambus" Suit" dated March 32, 2007. Accessed July 31,
2007.
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070323094639964
I think it would be hard to find a more timely example of "hard evidence" for
the IP problems we are dealing with. Note that this
example involved a formally incorporated and registered standards organization.
One need not be overly imaginative to consider the
increased complications that could arise from limited and voluntary "public
domain" IP policy endorsed by the leadership of this
unincorporated community.
-j
--
Joe Andrieu
SwitchBook Software
http://www.switchbook.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 (805) 705-8651
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
