Started: 4/1/2010 2:23 AM | |
|  | Limited, Non-exclusive License to Use Intellectual Property The first paragraph of this section seeks to assure UCAIug and members the royalty-free to use contributed IP for its purposes of furthering the state of art and science, while retaining the IP owner the right to license for commercial benefit. However, the second paragraph seems to expand beyond that purpose, by giving UCAIug the royalty-free license to place that contributed IP into the public domain. Once IP is in the public domain, there is no recourse for the original IP owner to benefit commercially from that IP. Interestingly, SDOs are exempted explicitly from this loss of control over their IP.
I think this situation will signficantly dampen the enthusiasm of commercial entities to openly display their innovation in a standards forum, and encourage them to join or form closed alliances of their own in order to be covered by the SDO exemption. It is not clear to me that this is this intentional, in light of revised IP terms at other standards related bodies that have recently moved toward better protection for commercialization of innovative IP.
| |
Started: 4/1/2010 11:07 AM | | |
| | Comments on the IPP I will preface my comments by saying that the IPP does not clearly state the objectives for the IPP. It would be very helpful to me to understand the use case involved, especially in the event of the UCAIug accepting proprietary IP and seemingly granting sub licenses to members.
My comments on the items that the IPP should cover are below. This is written somewhat generically and will need to be "legalized":
1. UCAIug should not accept disclosure of confidential information at any UCAIug event. Tainting anyone who attends an activity with confidential information and then by virtue of their membership creating an implied obligation to keep the information conidential will prevent many people from particpating in any UCAIug activity. No disclosure of confidential information shall be made at any UCAIug event without express prior written consent of the UCAIug governing board which should not generally be given. Any information disclosed during any UCAIug activity whether electronic, verbal/oral, visual, or written form shall be considered non-confidential without restriction on disclosure and that participation in any UCAIug is contingent upon agreeing to that.
2. The act of disclosing information whether electronic, verbal/oral, visual, or written during any UCAIug activity grants UCAIug the right to reproduce and publish such information in furtherance of the group's business purpose and grants the right for any receiver to use such information internally without payment of royalty. The act of disclosing any copyrighted materials during any UCAIug activity is considered an explicit acceptance of this. UCAIug will not destroy or obscure any copyright notices placed in any information disclosed but is not responsible for marking any materials with applicable copyright notices and no member or user of the information can relay on the UCAIug for identifying applicable copyrights that might apply to the information. NOTE: I am not trying to suggest that rights to copyrighted material should be granted but avoiding the situation where a presenter can claim a royalty from someone on the basis that they viewed a presentation either during an event or at their office after downloading it off the Sharepoint site cannot be accepted.
3. A similar patent policy should be put in place like IEEE standards activities. IEEE disclaims any liability for identifying any patents that might apply to its standards while simultaneously making it a requirement that anyone participating in the standard that holds a patent is required to disclose it. But IEEE does not accept any liability that anyone holding a patent is complying with that. They start every standards meeting with an IPP presentation and disclaimer.
4. UCAIug must disclaim any and all warranties of any kind regarding any information disclosed during any UCAIug event or otherwise published or provided by UCAIug either electronically, visually, verbal, or in writing.
5. Do we really want to accept proprietary IP without explicit declarations of rights? I would like to see a use case for this before I can fully comment on it. For instance, if we are going to accept such stuff must be an indemnification by whomever is providing it that they have the right to provide it to UCAIug under the terms specified in the first place.
6. Publication, presentation, or disclosure of information at any UCAIug event should not be deemed to place the information into the public domain. Likewise, simply attending an event must not create legal obligations, beyond those of complying with ordinary copyright or patent law. If what they want to disclose is so special that they cannot submit to the same restrictions that everyone who makes a presentation at any modern technical conference agrees with, then they shouldn't be disclosing it without some review, express agreement, and prior notice.
7. We should develop a simple slide presentation on IPP that must be presented to open any UCAIug event. How else can we expect people to comply?
Other comments on the opening paragraph text are in the attached file.
| |
Started: 4/28/2010 3:27 PM | | |
| | Comments on IPP I ran the document by Exelon's legal department. I have attached the raw marked up comments. I suspect clarifications may be needed, however I suggest that the collective comments be reviewed and the revised version be reviewed. It would be helpful for a "cover letter" where the principals that the IPP is intended to meet are stated. This way the attourney can review this in the proper light to protect both the UG and Exelon/ComEd. | |
Started: 4/29/2010 3:05 PM | |
| | Comments on IPR There are several areas where the document contradicts itself. The other comments cover these, so I won't duplicate those comments.
Key issues beyond this -
There should be disclosure requirements - participants should be obligated to disclose their IPR in related to work effort in any area of UCAIUG.
There should be an obligation of RAND licensing terms for IPR related to a UCAUIG work effort.
Tom Herbst
Silver Spring Networks
| |
Started: 4/29/2010 11:22 PM | |
| | Comments on the UCAIug IPP Draft I submitted this document for review by Sony's Legal department. We request to strike out the provisions in the Remedies section wherein the signer/company agrees that that such IP owner will be entitled to injunctive relief.
Thank you,
Ted Booth
Sony Electronics | |
Started: 4/30/2010 12:12 PM | |
| | Comment on IPP
The border between defining requirements and development of standards is often unclear. It is therefore important that an IPR policy is in place irrespective of whether UCAIug is focused on only developing requirements, directly setting standards or both.
The UCAIug would gain additional perspectices by reviewing the guidelines of bodies that have looked extensively at setting IPR policies for trade organizations. For example, such organizations include the Intellectual Property Owner's Association (IPO), the American Bar Association (ABA), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and others. Two document that may be particularly helpful in this regard are “Standards Primer: An Overview of Standards Setting Bodies and Patent-Related Issues that Arise in the Context of Standards Setting Activities,” COMM. ON TECHNICAL STANDARDIZATION SECTION OF SCI. & TECH. LAW, AM. BAR ASS’N, STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PATENT POLICY MANUAL, and “ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards.”
It is concerning that the proposed IPR policy is vague, imprecise, and out of step with the spirit of those documents, and does not appear to adequately consider the many significant legal ramifications surrounding notification and licensing of intellectual property rights in a standards-setting context. In fact, the proposed policy in its current form appears so far removed from policies enacted by the many other trade organizations with which UCAIug interacts, that it could be quite difficult for many members to continue their support for, and important work with, the UCAIug.
John Boot
GE Energy | |
Started: 5/3/2010 1:00 PM | | |
| | Cisco comments re: UCAIug IPP (no text) | |
Started: 8/11/2010 6:59 PM | | |
| | IPR is not workable at all I think this entire IPR document and process needs to reconsidered. This document implies that we are going to create legally binding obligations on our members to keep information disclosed during a UCAIug activity confidential and to pay unspecified fees for using the information simply because they attended a presentation and the presenter declares that the information is confidential and told them the fees they expect to be paid. How is that going to be enforceable unless we get every single member to sign legally binding NDAs and licensing agreements? Who is going to sign such a thing without knowing what that information is and what the fees are ahead of time?
I have done numerous NDAs with companies big an small and there will be a significant number of Fortun 500 and Fortune 20M companies that will flee this IPR and the organization that tries to impose it like a new flu virus.
UCAIug's IPR policy should be closer to that of IEEE, if not identical to it. All information publicly disclosed at a UCAIug event should be considered public and subject to common use rights to that information. We should not accept confidential information or information that requires payment of fees to use without explicit approval by an empowered panel ofmembers. Even in that case it might require a change in our charter to enforce. It doesn't mean that people cannot make presentations about information that requires licensing to use. For instance, you can make a presentation about somebody's product and what it does, even present the fees for using it, but that information becomes public and can be freely exchanged.
How can the UCAIug operate in an open way if everyone has to maintain a secret simply because someone discloses a secret? If someone has a secret that they want to paid for, then they shouldn't be openly disclosing it at a UCAIug meeting.
I think it would be a wise first step to define what overall objectives of the IPR must be met before we define the IPR. For instance, do we want to accept proprietary and confidential information? For what purpose? Give an example. Do we want to act as a licensing body? Are we going to accept any responibility to enforce IPR rules on members that don't comply? What steps are we willing to take to enforce such rules? How do we treat copyrighted information? (Note: we have a policy regarding IEC copyrghted standards and that should be a part of this IPR also) Do we want to distribute information that incorporates patented technology?(Note: Patents are not confidential).
There are many such questions that need to be answered before we start putting words to the policy itself.
| |
Started: 8/13/2010 2:52 PM | |
| | Revision is still out of step with ANSI, NIST, IEC principles The revised document does not appear to have resolved the issues that were highlighted in my previous comment. The proposed policy is still (as commented on by CISCO) not consistent with NIST’s principles for smart grid standards. See Section 4.5, “Process for Future Smart Grid Standards Identification,” NIST Framework and Roadmap for Smart Grid Interoperability Standards, Release 1.0 (January 2010).
As further comment the document is unclear.
(1) It contains incomplete sentences.
“If a fee was initially specified for such information when it was initially, the UCA member desiring to use such information must pay the specified fee for such use to the disclosing party (the RAND license concept). – there seems to be something missing after initially.
(2) It uses undefined terms IPR, RAND.
Previous comment below.
Comment on IPP
The border between defining requirements and development of standards is often unclear. It is therefore important that an IPR policy is in place irrespective of whether UCAIug is focused on only developing requirements, directly setting standards or both.
The UCAIug would gain additional perspectives by reviewing the guidelines of bodies that have looked extensively at setting IPR policies for trade organizations. For example, such organizations include the Intellectual Property Owner's Association (IPO), the American Bar Association (ABA), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and others. Two document that may be particularly helpful in this regard are “Standards Primer: An Overview of Standards Setting Bodies and Patent-Related Issues that Arise in the Context of Standards Setting Activities,” COMM. ON TECHNICAL STANDARDIZATION SECTION OF SCI. & TECH. LAW, AM. BAR ASS’N, STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PATENT POLICY MANUAL, and “ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards.”
It is concerning that the proposed IPR policy is vague, imprecise, and out of step with the spirit of those documents, and does not appear to adequately consider the many significant legal ramifications surrounding notification and licensing of intellectual property rights in a standards-setting context. In fact, the proposed policy in its current form appears so far removed from policies enacted by the many other trade organizations with which UCAIug interacts, that it could be quite difficult for many members to continue their support for, and important work with, the UCAIug.
John Boot
GE Energy
| |
Started: 8/31/2010 1:15 PM | |
| | IPR objectives document The line "Do not submit information subject to patents" is not very useful.
Without doing an extensive search, the individual submitting may well have no knowledge of the IPR status of their own submission. This is why we need a best effort disclosure policy, both for the submitter and other entities that have knowledge of the submission.
The lack of disclosure and RAND requirements in the objectives demonstrates a disappointing lack of understanding of the issues. | |
Started: 9/8/2010 3:13 PM | |
| | Comments on "UCA IPR - Draft - 8/9/10" document Hello:
I have 2 comments on the “UCA IPR – Draft – 8/9/10” document.
1) In 8.b, it is not clear if another company makes a contribution that reads on Company X’s IP. Clearly, Company X did not make the contribution so it should not be obligated to the terms of 8.b. However, the UCA work product will include this IP that Company X owns (and did not contribute). There does not appear to be any IP review of a UCA work product with any associated rules covering disclosure of IP included but not contributed by the owner. Please advise here.
2) Regarding 8.b.i, it is typically very difficult to state terms and pricing before making a contribution. If terms and pricing are not provided as part of the contribution, does it mean the contribution will be free?
Overall, as someone else has suggested, I think it would be very helpful to have a teleconference to discuss this document and associated Objectives further.
Thank you,
Ted Booth
| |
Started: 9/15/2010 11:26 PM | |
| | Cisco comments on "UCA IPR - Draft - 8/9/10" document
Cisco appreciates UCA’s efforts in preparing the IPP documents and the thoughtful comments posted by other users. It appears there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the purpose of the IPP documents and how they should address intellectual property rights. In this regard, we direct your attention to Cisco's prior comments on this topic. To move this project forward and address everyone’s concerns, we propose the following for your consideration:
1. Schedule a conference call to discuss the purpose of the IPP documents and how they should address intellectual property rights.
2. Prepare a new, more robust draft IPR policy that addresses the issues discussed in the conference call, and post this draft for review and comments.
3. Schedule a second conference call to discuss the comments on the new IPR Policy, and the next steps to further revise and finalize the IPR Policy.
Dan Lang (dlang@cisco.com) Senior Director, Intellectual Property
Mike Lee (mlee4@cisco.com) Senior Intellectual Property Counsel
Cisco Systems, Inc.
| |
Started: 2/8/2011 3:25 PM | |
| | IPR Matrix Draft The initital draft IPR Matrix has been posted, note that this isbbasically a text matrix from nine SDO's...no other User Groups are included.
ANSI/Homeplug/IEC/ISO/IETF/NAESB/OASIS/ZIGBEE
Where no text was found on a subject, the block is colored blue. Since the Matrix is fairly large, an EXAMPLE, column has been included, with a large black dot indicating that text exists in some column that attempts to address the subject.
There are probably a bunch of "misteaks"...I am blaming them on Fred, our friendly test frog.
Kindest regards...kc | |
|
|
|
|