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