PWG> Intellectual Property Proposal

PWG> Intellectual Property Proposal

PWG> Intellectual Property Proposal

charles.a.adams at exgate.tek.com charles.a.adams at exgate.tek.com
Tue Dec 8 11:26:21 EST 1998


I have had our legal department take a look at the IP wording submitted by
Cannon.

1. We agree with Don, PWG can not own intellectual property and thus can not
grant rights to that property.

2. The last paragraph in Section 8.1 (a) Ownership of IP rights: states
"Participants
in the standard setting procedure shall disclose any known patent or patent
application whose use ..."

We are wondering about the efficacy of the application part of this
statement. Does
that mean a company would have to disclose a patent application before it
has
been submitted to the Patent office?  If not what happens if it takes a long
time
for the patent office to issue a patent number? Finally the lawyer had some 
"legaleese" questions about this wording. Does the known apply to both the
"patent" and the "patent application". Does the Patent Application wording
need to use the term "pending" also?

2) Section (6) (i) 9. Signature: ... and (ii) 6. Signature.

What is meant by a signature of an authorized representative of the
company? Does that mean a legal representative of the company?
Or a representative of the company who may attend the PWG meetings?
Finally, is this really needed? If PWG is not a legal entity it can not
hold anyone accountable so why try to?

3) Section 8.2 Non-Confidentiality

The last sentence in this paragraph states: "Confidentiality
agreements entered into by the PWG shall bind all of the
individual Members and Associates."  The PWG does
not have members and associates as far as I know.  It
is difficult to restrict the behavior of the representatives
to PWG when PWG is an open body. The wording
proposed seems more appropriate for a true legal entity.

Chuck Adams
Charles.A.Adams at exgate.tek.com
Tektronix, Inc.





More information about the Pwg mailing list