IEEE Letters of Assurance: What is the problem*?

1. IEEE Letters of Assurance: What is the problem*? • Ad hoc letters cause confusion and are hard to track. • What do we do about the existing ad hoc LOAs? • What disclosures would contribute to informed decision-making about technology options? • What is reasonable? Ex post vs ex ante rates? • No blanket commitments by WG participants; only those with identified patents have a commitment; no declaration of participants’ affiliations. • Does the commitment apply only to the owner at the time of the LOA or does the commitment run with the patent? • Are future revisions of the standard that use the same technology covered? *The current LOA of 24January2005 is a major step forward over former practice. HP Proposal to IEEE

2. IEEE Letters of Assurance: What is the solution? Modify the current LOA within the current IEEE Bylaws to provide more meaningful disclosures. • Only a form LOA accepted (11). Multiple forms OK from one patent holder (17). • LOA is irrevocable (12-13) once given and applies to previous and subsequent standards using the same technology (14). • New LOAs apply only if less restrictive (15-16). • RAND (if used) includes a “not to exceed” rate (46). • RAND (if used) defined (47-48). • Disclosure of sample licenses encouraged (42 and 50). • Everyone attending WGs must submit a LOA on behalf of their sponsor (18), extending to affiliates and subsidiaries (35). • LOA commitments follow the patent (35). • Reasonable inquiry (58) and no subsequent amendments (59) if party asserts it has no relevant patents. Reference numbers above refer to LOA text draft proposal of 26May2005 HP Proposal to IEEE