Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] Proposed 802 Chair's Guideline Pertaining to Patents Etc.


There is how things are now and how things could be.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that IEEE 802 could unilaterally replace
presenting the PatCom slide set at meetings with a tick box. But I think
it would be a sensible direction to move. So we should be proposing it
PatCom as an alternative to flipping through the slide set at meetings. 

Also, even with a tick box, I think there should be some form of patent
call/request at meetings.  I just think should be able to be the brief,
one slide "Remember that we have a patent policy, you saw the slides
when you registered and you can find a copy at ..., you have obligations
under that policy." and to allow for responses or questions. So, I don't
think the SB-OM would need to change for the tick box approach. 

We are only required to read two of the slides now, but we are suppose
to show them all which takes time unless one just flashes the
intermediate slides on the screen without leaving time for participants
to read them themselves.

Now back to where things are now.

As far as whether 'session' and 'meeting' are defined and understood
terms in IEEE 802, I don't see any formal definition of the term session
in our P&P though one can derive a pretty good definition from context:
that a plenary session starts on Monday and ends on Friday based on when
it says the opening and closing EC meetings are and that Working Groups
or their subgroups can also have interim sessions.  For meeting, I can't
find any definition in the P&P and I can't derive one from context
either  (e.g. one that answers the question if a task group meets on
Tuesday and Wednesday all day is that 1, 2 or 4 meetings). 

The definition of "meeting" in RROO Chapter IV section 8 is different
than what was suggested earlier on this thread. RROR specifically says
that a meeting is a gathering "during which there is no cessation of the
proceedings and the members do not separate, unless for a short recess
as defined below." It goes on to say that a recess is a "short
intermission or break within a meeeting .... During the recess, members
may leave the hall or room in which the meeting is being held but they
are expected to remain nearby." Later under "DEPARTURE FROM PARLIMENTARY
MEANINGS IN ORDINARY SPEECH", it gives the example of incorrect usage of
recess - 'as in "to recess until tomorrow"' - My reading of RROO is that
our coffee or bio breaks can count as recesses, but an overnight break
and probably our lunch breaks (too much dispersal, too long, and too
much thrash in who is in the room for continuity) don't.

The other issue was with the text even if "meeting" and "session" are
"At the opening IEEE 802 plenary meeting and the first meeting of any
session of a IEEE 802 Working Group, Technical Advisory Group, Study
Group or Task Force/Group, the IEEE SA PatCom developed slide set [...]
shall be presented..."
Say that as usual at a plenary, the Working Group meets Monday. Then
task group A begins a meeting Tuesday morning. That meeting Tuesday
morning is the first meeting of task group A during the session so by a
strict reading of that the slide set needs to be presented, but some
feel that the intent was that the presentation at the meeting of the
Working Group covered the task group meetings during the session. 

If the intent is that the full slideset only needs to be shown at the
first WG meeting of a session for sessions that start with a WG meeting
and then break out into TG/TF meetings, then the guideline should
clearly say that. 

With the RROR definition of meeting, it looks like the guideline would
require the URL slide and chair's statement to be made at least each day
for a task force that meets on multiple days and possibly once per
morning and once afternoon (and once again if there is a dinner break
followed by evening meeting).


-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[] On Behalf Of David Law 2
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] Proposed 802 Chair's Guideline
Pertaining to Patents Etc.

Hi Pat,

The requirements that IEEE 802 have to meet are contained in subclause
6.3.2 'Call for patents' of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations
Manual [ ]. This
states that 'The chair or the chair's delegate of an IEEE
standards-developing working group or the chair of an IEEE standards
Sponsor shall be responsible for informing the members of the working
group that if any individual believes that Patent Claims might be
Essential Patent Claims, that fact should be made known to the entire
working group and duly recorded in the minutes of the working group
meeting. This request shall occur at every standards-developing

While it is up to IEEE 802 to decide the best approach for it to meet
these requirements, the PatCom FAQs strongly recommend that the IEEE
Patent Committee developed slide set be used. In respect to the draft
802 Chairs Patent Policy Guidelines, as Stuart states in his email
below, he worked on it with a number of folk that developed the updated
the patent policy. I believe that in our opinions the approach in the
draft best meets the requirements contained in the IEEE-SA Standards
Board Operations Manual and the recommendations contained in the PatCom

The draft IEEE 802 Chairs Patent Policy Guidelines states the PatCom
slide set is to be shown the same number of times as present, once at
the first meeting of each WG/TG/TF/SG session, although as you note
there is an additional slide to be shown at the start of each subsequent
meeting of a session. While the number of slides in the slide set has
increased from four to six, the number that it says should be read has
been reduced from three to two. In respect to the use of the terms
'session' and 'meeting' I was under the impression these were well
defined and understood terms within IEEE 802. If this is not the case, I
agree that it is something that may need revisiting.

The use of tick box during registration is a rather different approach
from that recommended by the PatCom FAQs and I don't think has ever been
considered by PatCom. I'd personally recommend that if such an approach
is to be considered the concept should be developed by interested
parties and then reviewed by PatCom. I do personally wonder if a tick
box at a IEEE
802 plenary would meet the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
requirement that 'This request shall occur at every standards-developing
meeting.' since there are so many meetings going on in that one week.
I'd also like to understand what level of record keeping on IEEE-SA
maintained systems would be required.

To this end, I think the best approach would be for a group of us that
are interested to bring a proposal to PatCom in September. I'm happy to
contribute this effort.


***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <>
wrote on 21/06/2007 19:45:06:

> I'm not sure I'm interpreting what you are saying in the attached 
> document correctly, but it doesn't seem to give any relief in the 
> amount of time that will be taken presenting the patent policy slides.

> If any thing, it expands what is required depending on how "meeting" 
> is interpreted. When my task group meets for two days during a 
> plenary, it looks like it requires the full slide presentation at the 
> beginning of the first day, then if each day is considered a 
> "meeting", the URL slide needs to be shown at the beginning of each 
> day. Or does the lunch break make the afternoon a new meeting?

> What happened to what we discussed about meetings with registration? 
> It would seem just as effective, possibly more effective, to require 
> that participants acknowledge that they have read the patent policy 
> slide set material in order to complete registration. When this has 
> been done, it should be enough at the meeting to show a condensed one 
> page slide with URLs and the chair's statement described for online or

> teleconference
> meetings: "The chair shall also make a statement if any individual 
> believes that patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) might be or 
> may become essential patent claims, that fact should be made known. 
> The fact that this statements were made, and any responses that were 
> given, specifically the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) 
> and/or the holder of the patent claim(s)/patent application claim(s) 
> that were identified (if any) and by whom, shall be duly recorded in
the minutes."

> The IETF has acknowledging their patent policy as part of the 
> registration process.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> [] On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:01 PM
> To:
> Subject: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] Proposed 802 Chair's Guideline 
> Pertaining to Patents Etc.

> 802.22 participants and EC members,

> I have received a number of comments/complaints about the amount of 
> meeting time that the "expanded" Patent Policy and Anti-trust slides 
> require and the repetitive nature of the presentation thereof (802 
> opening plenary/Joint Wireless WG opening plenary, WG opening plenary,

> TG meetings, etc.).

> Thanks to the 802.22 ad hoc leaders who have been including a link to 
> the slideset in their weekly conference call agendas and reminding 
> participants in each call that our activities are governed by those 
> policies.

> As a member of the IEEE-SA Board of Governors ("BoG") I had already 
> requested some time for discussion on the agenda of the upcoming BoG 
> meeting next week, with the goal of seeking some guidance on how many 
> times the slideset needs to be presented, when I received the attached

> message from the Chair of 802.11 to the 802 Executive Committee.

> I will take the contents of the attached document into account in the 
> discussions at the BoG next week, but would also welcome any 
> additional comments/suggestions from members of 802.22 and/or the 802 
> EC (on behalf of your WG members) that you may have regarding the 
> proposals in the attached document.

> Regards,
> Carl

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> On Behalf Of Stuart J. Kerry
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:56 PM
> To:
> Cc:;
> Subject: [802SEC] Proposed 802 Chair's Guideline Pertaining to Patents

> Etc.

> 802 EC Colleagues.

> Paul Nikolich has asked me to forward the attached document to you all

> in advance, regarding the proposed addition to his 802 Chair's 
> Guidelines that would pertain to the IEEE patent policy etc, within

> At Paul's request I have been working with David Law and the following

> folks at the IEEE namely, Dave Ringle, Karen Kenney, Michael Lindsay, 
> and Claire Topp. We have now reached consensus within this group and 
> with this Paul will present for information and discussion at the 
> opening EC meeting during our San Francisco meeting.

> May I respectfully suggest that you review the document in advance and

> bring your comments and suggestions with you and make them when Paul 
> presents.

> On behalf of Paul, thank you for your consideration.

> Regards

> / Stuart

> _______________________________

> Stuart J. Kerry
> Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG

> c/o: NXP Semiconductors,
> 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
> San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
> United States of America.

> +1 (408) 474-7356 - Phone
> +1 (408) 474-5343 - Fax
> +1 (408) 348-3171 - Cell
> eMail:
> _______________________________

> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.

> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.

> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.