Dear Kay and all -
we (collegues familiar with IPRs and me) have quickly gone through the draft of your UCAlug IPR Policy and have some comments.
In our comments the underlined are words that we think should be added to the text.
In "Definitions":
--Contribution
Contributions should be those directly submitted to UCAlug by a Contributor,
- ...
- to any UCAlug document library or
- to any UCAlug discussion forum, or...
--"Implementing Technology" seems to be defined vaguely, and, there is also a typographically error that might be important. We propose it should read - "Technology required for implementing or complying with a standard"
Also we propose to think about alternatives for the expression required: Does the word required mean "necessary" or "critical" or "essential" for implementing or complying with a standard? It probably is critical or required and necessary as an alternative.
--International Standards:
International Community: What community are you specifically referring to? We think the definition should be clearer.
--Reasonably and personally known - Here we propose the wording should be "The rule creates a presumption that . . . is deemed to have some knowledge related to the IPR of the company . . . . "
Also, line 12, organization, entity or company in any capacity did not have any knowledge of the IPR of that organization . . . ."
(Reason: No one can have knowledge of the IPR of the company as written, as this implies they know or should know ALL the IPR of the company).
---TC or Technical Committee - (should be those who are assigned the responsibility, not ownership, ownership is a special word implying other rights)
In "Article 5.2 IPR Disclosure":
Must close such IPR to UCAlug "as soon as the Contributor becomes aware" - appears unreasonable or impossible. We propose it should read, "as soon as practicable" after becoming aware or should have been aware." This allows one the time necessary to disclose without having to stop everything, especially since employees, anyone, etc. under the 'Reasonably and personally known' definition, already are said to know the IPR under the definitions. The amendments to that definition suggested above might help make more reasonable this requirement. Also, the "take whatever action it deems appropriate" is definitely too vague to be generally acceptable and should be modified to specific remedies.
Also, it does seem, difficult to imagine that any change to IPR, including limiting amendments or narrower claims to technology, would need a form submitted every time it changes.
-- Steve (Your posts "Define Entity and Organization" and "derivative work") -
We think that you are right - rights to created derivative works are not addressed here in 3,2 and should be clarified. Of course, the general question remains, who determines what are private and what are public ?
Our reading of 3.2 is that Private Documents can only used for his "individual use or its respecitive entity or organization", and, therefore, should not be shared with clients or contractors. But, individual use could be defined to make sure that it couldn't be shared with clients or contractors.
Best regards
Clemens