<trackbot> Date: 17 September 2013

Larry: if Nokia is not willing to clarify the situation then should we just stop the pag and not worry about it?

Wendy: it would be in our ability to do that if we looked through the claims and determined independently that we think we can do that and produce a spec that could be implementable royalty free?

Larry: over the last month we have not made much progress and not much resource have been devoted to that claims analysis.

<wseltzer> https://www.w3.org/2013/papag/wiki/Claims_Analysis

Wendy: Well -- looking at what we have on the wiki page, I see that many of the claims have been analyzed at least once and the suggestions have been made that these claims don't read on the current spec. If we are comfortable with that then we can recommend that the spec can be continued without infringing.

Larry: I am reluctant to comment on this claims chart as it was drawn up by someone who was not a patent attorney...

Wendy: Our aim is to produce a spec that people can feel comfortable implementing because none of our member participants have disclosed patent claims against it...

… given our aim to produce a spec that is implementable royalty free it wouldn't be consistent with our goals to say "because we don't have enough information about the patent we can't go further."

Bryan: We've had number of these groups established (over the years) - we have had subject matter experts involved. I trust the objectivity and the expertise. We're not lawyers but we understand the tech and we understand patents. I think the process works.

+1 to Bryan

Bryan: In my opinion, there has been an analysis and it seems reasonable and I more or less concur with it.

Eduardo: I have been analyzing the claims. I am not a lawyer but I have some background in patents so I have done my best. We don't need [further info] from Nokia. If we determine that we are on the safe side that we could implement in a RF fashion then this should be the analysis of the PAG. It would be useful for more people to comment on the analysis.

Wendy: Thank you for doing the analysis. Gives us a strong start.

Larry: I think the people who are doing the analysis have the technical expertise - but creating a claims chart is a form of expertise that is specialized.

… the problem is that when companies try to implement this specification, what are they going to rely on?

… the experise that we're lacking is 2 kinds - 1. our own legal expertise that lawyers will be able to rely on and 2. the expertise in nokia to tell us what their inventions are.

Eduardo: I agree with the first point that it would be great to have legal expertise - but don't agree we have nokia. Patent should be self-explanatory.

Larry: That's the opposite to the way it works. What Nokia says about its patent has legal effect.

Wendy: It sounds like you are suggesting changes to the PAG process - which would be welcome suggestions to the PSIG...
... While we can express to Nokia that it would be valuable to w3c for them to give us more information we cannot demand this information. We're working through the process as we have it.

… we are not in a position to offer legal opinions to all the implementers of a spec - so we are assessing to the best of our abilities in the group we can convene: does it appear that we can offer a RF spec, and leave it to those implementers to assess the legal risk. If they are willing to share the legal advice that they get then we invite that.

Larry: I agree with everything you said - I understand [nokia]'s reluctance. But we have been waiting a long time [in this group].

Dan: 1- want to point out that Eduardo works in the IPR department of Telefonica and so has the legal expertise though not a legal himself. 2- question for wendy do we know the disposition of the patents in question (will they be owned by Microsoft?)

Wendy: the news reports I saw was that it was a licensing of patents to microsoft rather than sale. I will follow up with a question to ms to ask if they own any of these patents.

Dan: I think we need to work through the technical analysis and move forward on the basis of the technical analysis.

Bryan: I think from a tech perspective - this is at least the due diligence that we've done in other PAGs I've been involved in. I think some additional work needs to be done but I think we can wrap up pretty soon. Last 2 months have also been the summer period which [as been another factor] why we've been slow.

Wendy: We have got through a lot of the analysis - the next steps are to move to the last few patents on the page - only a few claims left in those - and we should try to find someone who can help us with the Japanese patent to make sure that we've covered its claims already.

… and then put it into a PAG report - we already have an outline of what that can look like on the wiki. If we identify that none of the claims is infringed by the spec then we conclude that, conclude the PAG and the spec moves faster.

<Zakim> lrosen, you wanted to support moving forward with finishing the analysis ASAP.

Larry: I support you in getting this done quickly.

Wendy: if there others we can bring in [to augment Eduardo's analysis], anyone on this call can help fill in those boxes [in the claims analysis].

Larry: This topic came up at PSIG and anyone who wants to get their attorneys involved ought to send a representative to PSIG to participate in that conversation.

<wseltzer> ACTION: wseltzer to contact other WG members again [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/17-papag-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Contact other wg members again [on Wendy Seltzer - due 2013-09-24].

Dan: Anything we can do to scare up more people from working groups -

<wseltzer> ACTION: dka to follow up with Samsung re PAG involvement [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/17-papag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Follow up with samsung re pag involvement [on Daniel Appelquist - due 2013-09-24].

Dan: I can take an action to contact Samsung to see if they can be involved.

<wseltzer> ACTION: wseltzer to ask MS re patent status [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/17-papag-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - Ask ms re patent status [on Wendy Seltzer - due 2013-09-24].

Dan: [I have also requested GSMA get involved but I know this has been held up by the delays int he cooperation agreement between GSMA and W3C - which I understand is now in its final stages]

Bryan: I will start working through the analysis myself and provide input on the wiki over the next week or so.

Wendy: we will meet again in 2 weeks - ideally have the claims chart finished by then and start talking about the report.

<wseltzer> trackbot, end teleconf