Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lml who wrote (144589)	8/28/2006 9:15:14 AM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

*Re: "(iii) each member not submitting, nor participating in the development of a standard or spec, be held [ed: to] a standard, but somewhat less than members described in (ii)."* I agree with that sentence and that entire (nicely written) paragraph. Re: "If you examine the sentence a little closer, you will notice it says "inform ETSI of ESSENTIAL IPRs" ... not "inform ETSI of his/her/its own ESSENTIAL IPRs" or "inform ETSI of that MEMBER's ESSENTIAL IPRs". "The position you take is but one interpretation, but it is clearly not dispositive. There is other language in Sec. 4.1 that suggests "Essential IPRs" relate to THAT member's IPRs." Although I suspect the "ETSI Guide on IPR" is not legally binding, it provides some insight into ETSI's interpretation, an interpretation more meaningful than ours. From a table of rights and obligations deriving from the IPR policy: Member obligation -- "to inform ETSI about their own, and other people’s Essential IPRs* (clause 4.1)." etsi.org (pg 6) From an example of a technical committee chairman's formal call for IPRs at the beginning of each meeting: Suggested statement by chairmen -- "The attention of the members of this Technical Body is drawn to the fact that ETSI Members shall use reasonable endeavours under clause 4.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy, Annex 6 of the Rules of Procedure, to inform ETSI of Essential IPRs in a timely fashion. This section covers the obligation to notify its own IPRs but also other companies’ IPRs.*" (pg 10 in above link)

To: lml who wrote (144589)	8/28/2006 1:15:19 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

It's fairly clear to me. If somebody promotes something in a standard in which they are participating, and it makes their own patents essential, then no if's but's or maybe's, they have to say so, and not muck about doing so. If they are participating in a standard and they know about some patent but it's not theirs, then they must tell others in a timely way, meaning not too late to do something about it. If they are not involved in a standard, but they are aware a standard discussion is going on, and they know about some patent affecting that standard, then to help out and make the whole shambles work, they should tell the rest about it to ensure SETI doesn't inadvertently adopt some patent which hijacks everyone and causes big patent fights and extorquerationate costs. They are not obliged to go hunting for such patents. It's just if they know about them they should advise SETI. Along those lines. Mqurice