Hi Victor,
Thanks for bringing this up.
> I would ask the chair to keep these discussions in bounds
Prior to Scott posting this, I was worried that he was
focused on one particular vendor, so I proactively had him
send his reply to me first. Since it talked about IP
encryption technical issues and multiple vendor points,
I though this was ok.
As a result, I am going to need your help to clarify the
issues with the post that you see for myself and the working
group. The documents I am aware of that are relevant to
"restraint of trade" / antitrust are:
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/antitrust.pdf
https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/slideset.pdf
https://development.standards.ieee.org/myproject/Public/mytools/mob/patut.pdf
Are there other documents that I need to read?
What I got from these documents is:
1) Do identify patents that are required to implement the standard.
["slide 1", slideset.pdf]
2) Do not discuss interpretation, validity, or essentiality of
patents/patent claim
["slide 4", slideset.pdf]
3) Derived: Do not use material from any patent without an approved
letter of assurance (LOA).
[derived from page 9 of patut.pdf]
4) Copies of an Accepted LOA may be provided to the working group,
but shall not be discussed, at any standards working group meeting.
[page 10 of patut.pdf]
5) Do not discuss specific license rates, terms, or conditions.
Relative costs, including licensing costs of essential patent claims,
of different technical approaches may be discussed in standards
development meetings. Technical considerations remain primary focus.
["slide 4", slideset.pdf]
6) Don’t discuss or engage in the fixing of product prices, allocation
of customers, or division of sales markets.
["slide 4", slideset.pdf]
7) Don’t discuss the status or substance of ongoing or threatened litigation.
["slide 4", slideset.pdf]
8) Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed … do formally object.
["slide 4", slideset.pdf]
Going further, personally, I don't approve of either disparaging
a vendor or boasting about a vendor.
Even if these are the complete documentation,
I also realize that there are sometimes rules that are
"commonly undersood" that are not written down, so I ask
you to forgive my ignorance and help me make sure that
the SG, WG, and myself understand them.
So what did I miss?
Since 1076-2008 includes encryption in the standard, the WG
will need to coordinate updating this portion of the standard
with the P1735 WG. Since P1735 is a corporate based WG, we will
need a liaison who can advise us if our concerns and requirements
are being met by P1735 and who would hopefully voice/advocate
any concerns or requirements of P1076 that are not currently
being met by P1735.
WRT to Scott's post, I think mentioning company names in this
helped identify the importance for the standardization of P1735
and coordination within P1076. I don't think it was intended
in any way to boast about or disparage any tools capability.
Nor was it to get help with any particular tool. Going
further it identified requirements for encryption from a
particular user of encryption.
Best Regards,
Jim Lewis
P1076 study group chair.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jim Lewis Director of Training mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com SynthWorks Design Inc. http://www.SynthWorks.com 1-503-590-4787 Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Jan 12 14:31:47 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 12 2011 - 14:32:08 PST