The Q's PR is pure spinola. What was unwritten about this policy? It may be the ITU's policy but the court agreed that it applied to JVT:
"According to the ITU-T and ISO/IEC IPR policy,members/experts are encouraged to disclose as soon as possible IPR information (of their own or anyone else’s) associated with any standardization proposal (of their own or anyone else’s). Such information should be provided on a best effort basis."
And what is not unwritten about the JVT form?
"Anyone with knowledge of any patent affecting the use of JVT work, of their own or of any other entity (“third parties”), is strongly encouraged to submit this form as well. This information will be maintained in a “living list” by JVT during the progress of their work, on a best effort basis. If a given technical proposal is not incorporated in a Recommendation | Standard, the relevant patent information will be removed from the “living list”. The intent is that the JVT experts should know in advance of any patent issues with particular proposals or techniques, so that these may be addressed well before final approval. This is not a binding legal document; it is provided to JVT for information only, on a best effort, good faith basis. Please submit corrected or updated forms if your knowledge or situation changes. This form is not a substitute for the ITU ISO IEC Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration, which should be submitted by Patent Holders to the ITU TSB Director and ISO Secretary General before final approval."
The judge's reasoning also seems geared towards the laudable goal of preventing patent ambush:
"It is clear from the above that, like the Rambus case, the identification of participants’ patents and pending applications is critical to the feasability and effectivity of industry standards so that the rights of IPR owners may be protected (1) by independently licensing or (2) by joining a pool of IPR available to be licensed on a non-exclusive, nondiscriminatory basis to any who wish to practice the industry standard. If any owners of IPR refuse to license their IPR, such a position could either block adoption of a standard or require the standards organization to create a standard which does not practice the IPR, if such be possible. And, of course, the effectivity of industry standards could be substantially impaired if related undisclosed patents were revealed after publication of the standard."
Can't argue with him.
I'm with Jeffrey - sickened by the abject stupidity of this whole episode. From start to finish, a giant cluster **** of idiocy on Q's part.
Now, as I've mentioned, it has to deal with the backdraft. |
