[cabfpub] Public Digest, Vol 57, Issue 19
vfournier at apple.com
Tue Jan 3 19:54:14 MST 2017
We all know we disagree on the current documents, which is, in part, why we are working on an updated process.
Would you please clarify what your specific objective is? Are you looking for an interpretation that the voting period on Ballot 182 ends on Jan 7th? Please note that a PAG can also be convened for an adopted guideline pursuant to Section 7.2 of the IPR Policy - so this could be done after the voting period ends. Also, all Forum members would be on notice of the Exclusion Notices that were submitted during the Review Period. Is this what you’re looking for?
Senior Standards Counsel
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>
On Jan 3, 2017, at 6:32 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Virginia Fournier via Public <public at cabforum.org <mailto:public at cabforum.org>> wrote:
1) Does the formation of a PAG affect the stated ballot date of Jan 7?
>>>Pursuant to Section 7.3.1, the PAG is convened by the PAG Chair, and the timing is at the discretion of the PAG Chair. So if the PAG Chair decides that the PAG should be formed before the vote on the Ballot is complete in light of the Exclusion Notices received, then that’s what should happen and voting will be suspended. This makes sense because members would not want to vote on the Ballot without knowing the PAG’s conclusion on the Exclusions. Voting on the Ballot would then take place after the PAG provides its conclusion on the Exclusion(s). Voting members would then have the PAG conclusion and their own patent analyses available prior to voting (unless the PAG does not recommend proceeding to a vote, in which case the proponents will likely withdraw the Ballot).
I suppose a specific question: I have read the IPR Policy and Bylaws numerous times, but as I indicated to Kirk, I cannot find any text that supports this view: That it is possible for a Ballot to be suspended upon the formation of a PAG or unilaterally by the Chair. I realize both possibilities have been discussed for future improvements, but I do not believe our current process allows it.
As you and Kirk have clearly taken a different read of our current process and workmode, I'm curious if you can support that interpretation with text from our Bylaws or IPR Policy. While I understand why it would be desirable, particularly under the interpretation of our process that was being used for these Ballots, I don't believe it's well supported - but would be happy to know where I'm mistaken.
The other questions I asked were questions which I believe the IPR Policy and Bylaws do answer, and for which I think their answers arguably highlight flaws with an interpretation that voting is "suspended".
Given that a fully endorsed ballot was put forward, given that it concluded a 60 day review period, I cannot help but conclude that voting has begun, and will end on Jan 7, and whatever the result, that will be the 'end' of Ballot 182.
It may be that members vote No, due to the fact that disclosures were made.
It may be that members vote Yes, because the disclosures made does not negatively impact the value afforded by a clear and unambiguous document.
But I do not want it to be left as a zombie ballot in a 'limbo' state after Jan 7.
I do not want it to prevent further ballots after Jan 7.
I do not want it to fail quorum because the Chair didn't adhere to the Bylaws or IPR policy, however undesirable that may be.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Public