Hi All,
Attached is an updated list of action items which were captured during
our F2F meetings. I am also attaching two notes (that are relevant for
recent action items):
* from Victor regarding his action item on the patent LOA form
* from Oz regarding his action item on members dues and invoice
dates
Dennis, can you please park this document on our Web?
Thanks,
--- Johny.
attached mail follows:
Victor,
I will ask the PatCom Chair and get back to you.
Regards,
****************************************************************
David L. Ringle
Program Manager - Governance, Policy & Procedures
IEEE Standards Activities Department
445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
TEL: +1 732 562 3806
FAX: +1 732 875 0524
d.ringle@ieee.org
****************************************************************
"Victor Berman"
<vberman@cadence. To: <d.ringle@ieee.org>
com> cc: "Srouji, Johny" <johny.srouji@intel.com>,
<stds-patcom@ieee.org>
09/15/2004 04:21 Subject: RE: Question about patent policy and LOA
PM
David,
I understand the reasons for not addressing the issue at the September
PatCom meeting but P1800 needs to figure out how to proceed and I do not
think waiting until December will be acceptable. Is it possible to have
a tele-conference to discuss this issue?
Regards,
Victor
-----Original Message-----
From: d.ringle@ieee.org [mailto:d.ringle@ieee.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:20 AM
To: Victor Berman
Cc: Srouji, Johny; stds-patcom@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Question about patent policy and LOA
Victor,
Normally, yes.
But, my answer is No. PatCom is a very small committee. The Chair, Ray
Hapeman, will not be present at our September 2004 meeting, which we are
deliberately trying to keep short. I would much prefer to hold off on
introducing substantial New Business items until a future meeting,
perhaps
December 2004 in NYC.
In a separate email to the PatCom Chair, he has been asked how he would
like to address this issue.
{I'll keep you in the loop.}
Regards,
****************************************************************
David L. Ringle
Program Manager - Governance, Policy & Procedures
IEEE Standards Activities Department
445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
TEL: +1 732 562 3806
FAX: +1 732 875 0524
d.ringle@ieee.org
****************************************************************
"Victor Berman"
<vberman@cadence. To:
<d.ringle@ieee.org>
com> cc:
<Deese.Pamela@dorsey.com>, "Srouji, Johny"
<johny.srouji@intel.com>, <k.kenney@ieee.org>,
09/14/2004 08:52
<rhapeman@telcordia.com>, <wcadams@us.ibm.com>
AM Subject: RE: Question
about patent policy and LOA
David,
Is it possible to put the consideration for changing the LOA form on
the agenda for the next PatCom meeting?
We just had a meeting of the P1800 WG where the patent issues were
discussed and the preferred mechanism suggested by the WG is to have the
LOA form changed to include a check box for "non-assert" if this can be
done in a timely manner. Let me know if you think this is feasible.
Regards,
Victor
-----Original Message-----
From: d.ringle@ieee.org [mailto:d.ringle@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 4:02 PM
To: Victor Berman
Cc: Deese.Pamela@dorsey.com; Srouji, Johny; k.kenney@ieee.org;
rhapeman@telcordia.com; wcadams@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Question about patent policy and LOA
Victor,
There is a difference between freely licensing (either royalty-free or
not
royalty-free, with RAND) and not asserting patents. Our template LoA
form
does not currently have a non-assertion check box. So, at present, if a
patent holder wished to use Option a) and state that it will not enforce
any of its essential patents, it would need to submit a free-form
statement
to PatCom.
Perhaps, PatCom should explore adding such a box to the template LoA
form.
I am troubled by the statement that the P1800 WG has adopted the policy
of
only accepting Option a). This is not something that the WG has the
right
to do. The IEEE-SA (on behalf of the IEEE) already has a defined policy
in
the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws - a document superior to any WG
documents - that states that RAND LoAs are acceptable. Thus, the WG
must
permit such. Also, all LoAs and non-assertion statements are to be sent
to
PatCom.
{P.S. I am the PatCom Administrator.}
Regards,
****************************************************************
David L. Ringle
Program Manager - Governance, Policy & Procedures
IEEE Standards Activities Department
445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
TEL: +1 732 562 3806
FAX: +1 732 875 0524
d.ringle@ieee.org
****************************************************************
"Victor Berman"
<vberman@cadence. To:
<d.ringle@ieee.org>
com> cc:
<rhapeman@telcordia.com>, <wcadams@us.ibm.com>,
<Deese.Pamela@dorsey.com>, <k.kenney@ieee.org>, "Srouji,
09/09/2004 03:35 Johny"
<johny.srouji@intel.com>
PM Subject: Question about
patent policy and LOA
Dear PatCom,
I am a member of the P1800 WG. We are a new group and have been working
through some policy issues with respect to patent policy.
There is an apparent (to me) conflict between IEEE documents covering
patent assurance.
In the IEEE SA Bylaws, http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/6
they give two options
(A) not-enforce
(B) RAND
See para 6 below:
Our WG has adopted the policy of only accepting part (A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
6. Patents
IEEE standards may include the known use of essential patents and
patent applications provided the IEEE receives assurance from the
patent holder or applicant with respect to patents whose
infringement
is, or in the case of patent applications, potential future
infringement the applicant asserts will be, unavoidable in a
compliant implementation of either mandatory or optional portions
of
the standard [essential patents]. This assurance shall be provided
without coercion and prior to approval of the standard (or
reaffirmation when a patent or patent application becomes known
after
initial approval of the standard). This assurance shall be a
letter
that is in the form of either:
a)
A general disclaimer to the effect that the patentee will
not
enforce any of its present or future patent(s) whose use
would
be required to implement either mandatory or optional
portions
of the proposed IEEE standard against any person or entity
complying with the standard; or
b)
A statement that a license for such implementation will be
made
available without compensation or under reasonable rates,
with
reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free
of
any unfair discrimination.
This assurance shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the
standard's approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal and
is
irrevocable during that period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
In the LOA Template that IEEE provides in the PatCom guide
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/patcom the choices are to
either
license for not license. No mention is made of not asserting. To
me
there is a difference between freely licensing and not asserting
patents. I would like to get a clarification from PatCom on this
issue.
Thanks,
Victor
Victor Berman
Group Director
Industry Marketing
Tel: 978 262 6560
Mobile: 978 884 5113
vberman@cadence.com
attached mail follows:
All,
I wanted to complete on of my action items from the last meeting. Namely to inform Accellera how much should they invoice each of the members of 1800 for the funded services.
If you recall, in our August meeting we agreed to tax ourselves with ANNUAL fee that will be administered and collected by Accellera. The fee (annual) was to be collected by the end of November 2004 and again in 2005 according to the following schedule:
Revenue: Under $10M, Fee $0K
Revenue: Between $10M - $100M, Fee $1K
Revenue: Between $100M - $1000M, Fee $3K
Revenue: over $1000M, Fee $5K
Bellow is a list of all current members and the fee I assigned to them. Please provide feedback on this list before I send to Accellera:
Intel: $5K
Mentor: $3K
Accellera: $0K
Infineon: $5K
Sun: $5K
Verisity: $1K
Sunburst: $0K
IBM: $5K
Cadence: $5K
Bluespec: $0K
Jeda: $0K
Synopsys: $5K
Total for 2004 is $34K and a similar amount for 2005.
-Oz.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ieee1800@eda.org [mailto:owner-ieee1800@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brophy, Dennis
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 9:57 AM
To: ieee1800@eda.org
Subject: Unapproved Minutes from 14 September 2004 IEEE P1800 SV WG Meeting
The unapproved minutes from the 14 September 2004 IEEE P1800 SystemVerilog Working Group meeting can be found at: <http://www.eda.org/sv-ieee1800/Meetings/2004/September/9-14-04MeetingMinutesUnapproved.pdf> http://www.eda.org/sv-ieee1800/Meetings/2004/September/9-14-04MeetingMinutesUnapproved.pdf.
There are still some submitted information that needs to be updated on the website. If you have additional corrections to the minutes, please forward them to me.
Regards,
Dennis
Secretary, P1800 SV WG
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 04 2004 - 10:02:33 PDT