RE: ALERT -- IEEE stinks up the house! ...

Dear ALL:

For crying out loud! I am going to call this the Phsyco Therapy Refelector; Starring Jim Lewis, John Michael Williams, Gabe Moretti, and Alec Stanculescu. With Guest appearances from Stephen Bailey, Victor Berman, Shalom Bresticker, Tim Davis. Executive Director Peter Ashenden. Unwilling and disgrunteled Director Mr. Dennis Brophy.

Guys, you sound like a broken record. Stop-it. Have we not discussed the IEEE copyrights issue a million times before?

Like it or leave it. Go do something useful for yourselves and/or your employers and for society at-large. Conseve your energy and time. Execuse my broken English. God Bless us all. Have a nice day.

WAHanna
William A. (Bill) Hanna; Ph.D.EE
Boeing SDB Programs
Boeing Technical Fellow-Advanced Avionics
MC S500-3100 Phone: 636-925-4802
St. Louis, MO 63166-0516 Fax: 636-925-3327
E-mail: william.a.hanna@boeing.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Gabe Moretti [mailto:gmoretti@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:22 AM
To: stds-dasc@eda.org
Subject: Re: ALERT -- IEEE stinks up the house! ...

If I now understand what you are saying, you are talking about the rights of individual employees while they perform work related to a WG. Then there are two possible cases:
1) this is work that you do in your own time that is outside of the area for which you have been hired by your employer. For example a verification engineer working on a standard for power distribution over a grid, then if your work is done specifically to develop said standard while you are a member of the WG, you do not have a copyright, the work belongs to the WG and therefore to the IEEE. If the work was done prior to the formation of the WG, then you have the copyright and if you want to contribute your work to the WG then you will have to produce the properly signed form letter or your work will not be used by the WG.
2) this work was done in your own time but it is related to your job function. This is more difficult, because different states have different employment laws, but in general, it does not matter at what time or where you performed the work, it still belongs to the company that employs you. So, a verification engineer coming up in his or her own time with some new Verilog constructs, has no personal copyright to the work. It belongs to the company. Again if the work is done while the person is a member of the WG working on some aspects of Verilog, then the work belongs to the WG, otherwise it belongs to the company. The above interpretations are my personal opinion. I am not a patent lawyer, not a copyright lawyer. I have served as executive vice president and as CEO of two different companies and the above would be my starting position in consulting a lawyer as to the proper course to take. I have been involved in standards development with the IEEE for fifteen years. During this time I have seen a few
 instances of small companies trying to get marketing advantages by working on a standard and claiming copyright or ownership of technology used by a WG. This has never worked for either parties. We are also all aware of the other technique which has generated punitive legal action: the steering of a standard toward content that would financially benefit one specific company by omitting to disclose patents or copyrights that would restrict the use of the standard. This is regrettable and, as far as I know, has never gone unpunished. I think that the mechanisms in place within IEEE-SA are sufficient to safeguard the rights of all parties involved in the development of standards. Gabe
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Michael Williams" <jwill@astragate.net>
To: <stds-dasc@eda.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: ALERT -- IEEE stinks up the house! ...

> Hi Gabe.
>
> No, you are referring to a different question.
>
> I was not referring to ENTITY or EMPLOYEE relations,
> but to the relationship of a WG member with IEEE.
>
> You may be confusing some sort of allocation of employed
> time (by an employer), with assignment of a copyright
> for work NOT done as part of ones job.
>
> Someone employed to write specifications might have their copyrights
> validly assigned to IEEE by the employer, under some circumstances.
>
> Gabe Moretti wrote:
>
> > John,
> > boy are you confused! The copyright assignment to the IEEE is NEVER
done by
> > an individual employee of a company that happens to be a member of
> > the
WG.
> > It is done on a form letter that has been approved by IEEE legal
> > counsel
by
> > the legal department of the company assigning the copyright. In
exceptional
> > cases, like that of 1364 Verilog, where the original standard was
> > owned
by a
> > consortium and not by a company, it was the Chair of OVI, with the
> > full approval of the Board of Directors, that assigned the
> > copyright. The
same
> > will have to be true for SystemC, where OSCI owns the copyright to
> > the standard since SystemC is not an open standard, it is an
> > administered standard that accepts open contributions. Of course you
> > can employ whichever intent you choose in reading what
Dennis
> > states, but in this case your intent to discredit the procedures of
> > the
IEEE
> > has led you to some very wrong conclusions.
>
> These procedures, as described to me, seem to be in violation
> of Federal law. Did you notice in the "hierarchy"
> of precedence recently posted on the reflector, that the highest level
> cited was the law of New York State?
>
> Copyright law is not State law;
> it is Federal law, as empowered by Article I.8.8 of the US
> Constitution.
>
> Federal law preempts State law on copyright, yet IEEE apparently does
> not admit to recognizing Federal law. You call this (below) "extremely
> well advised"?
>
> I agree that it is generally understood that standards
> work in a WG is equivalent to a "work for hire" in some sense, but not
> because of anything that the WG Chair
> has to say. And, yes, work done for hire for private
> companies or other organizations may be assigned copyright
> to IEEE without author consent. But, standards work for
> IEEE is NOT "work for hire". Even if it were, I think
> a civil suit could be filed because of undercompensation
> of WG members. In fact, these persons are required to PAY
> dues and fees to participate, so it is IEEE which is being hired (for
> pay) by them, if anyone is being hired.
>
> You claim I am confused, yet you make no attempt
> to ask why I wrote what I did. Well, it is based partly
> on Title 17 of the US Code (copyright law), Section
> 201(e), which says,
>
> "INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER. When an individual author's
> ownership of a copyright ... has not previously been
> transferred voluntarily by that individual author,
> no action by any governmental body, or other official
> or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer,
> or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the
> copyright . . . shall be given effect under this Title
> [copyright law], except as provided in [bankruptcy law]."
>
> Note that the bankruptcy laws also are Federal, not State, law.
>
> Just to clarify my intention in my previous posting,
> I want to add that I have contributed to standards development for
> years, and what I have done has been
> DONATED: I gave it away and have no intention to
> take it back. I advise all readers on this reflector
> to do the same. However, it is the height of impudence
> for anyone to claim that IEEE, which should be thanking members for
> donations, has any power to take donations by force or demand they be
> surrendered in court.
>
>
> Common sense indicates, after
> > all, that the IEEE would not have stayed in existence for these many
years
> > if they had been as naive as you paint them in conducting business.
> > I
can
> > assure all of the DASC members that in the case of copyright and
> > patent
law,
> > the IEEE is extremely well advised.
> > Gabe Moretti
>
>
> --
> John
> jwill@AstraGate.net
> John Michael Williams
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Michael Williams" <jwill@astragate.net>
> > To: "IEEE DASC" <stds-dasc@eda.org>
> > Cc: <vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org>; "John Cooley"
> > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:40 AM
> > Subject: Re: ALERT -- IEEE stinks up the house! ...
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi Dennis.
> >>
> >>According to U. S. copyright law, all original works in fixed
> >>format, such as writing, are copyrighted automatically
> >>and are owned by the author. I prefer a system in which
> >>the author must affix a copyright notice, but, that's
> >>the current law.
> >>
> >>Unless the WG Chair has a power of attorney from each author in a
> >>WG, the Chair has no power to assign copyright in
> >>the work of others to IEEE. Such an assignment would be
> >>bogus and unlawful.
> >>
> >>I read your quotes below, but, in my opinion, WG members are not
> >>"hired" by IEEE, and a statement from the Chair to the contrary is
> >>meaningless in the absence of a contractual
> >>assignment by each member or a power of attorney. Civil
> >>suits by undercompensated authors almost always are won (movie
> >>script writers being a well-known example), even in the presence of
> >>a valid assignment contract.
> >>
> >>There may actually be a criminal offense, in view of
> >>DMCA and other attempts to criminalize
> >>miappropriation of intellectual property. Is the
> >>IEEE rule you quote below an attempt to circumvent
> >>authors' copyright protection under U. S. law?
> >>
> >>You can find the copyright law online as Title 17 of the
> >>U. S. Code. I can dig up a link, if anyone is interested.
> >>
> >>Calling someone an employee doesn't make them one, and failing to
> >>pay a salary or even a contractual fee, makes such claims false, in
> >>my opinion.
> >>
> >>"Understanding" that IEEE falsely is claiming to have
> >>hired a WG member is not equivalent to a copyright
> >>assignment by such a member. Members doing the work
> >>anyway, can claim not to have read the P&P, to have forgotten it, or
> >>to have recognized it as a false and ineffectual claim.
> >>
> >>Aside,
> >>this whole debate would not have arisen if DASC(-SC) had not been
> >>threatening to disenfranchise members by levying what is in effect
> >>an exhorbitant poll tax on standards policy voting.
> >>
> >>I would prefer to drop the copyright issue and return to something
> >>under IEEE control: Lowering expenses, and hopefully dues, for
> >>DASC, DASC-SC, and probably SA.
> >>--
> >> John
> >> jwill@AstraGate.net
> >> John Michael Williams
> >>
> >>Brophy, Dennis wrote:
> >>
> >>>Tim,
> >>>
> >>>You may wish to familiarize yourself more with the IEEE P&Ps. You
> >>>can
> >
> > get a copy of the IEEE-SA Operations Manual at
> > http://standards.ieee.org/sa/sa-om.pdf
> > <http://standards.ieee.org/sa/sa-om.pdf> . You will find that when
> > the chair of the committee, Steve Bailey in the case of VHDL,
> > submits the
PAR
> > form, they will sign the Copyright Agreement acknowledging that the
proposed
> > standard constitutes a "work made for hire." It may be that Steve
> > has
not
> > reviewed these details with the VHDL Working Group. But then again,
> > it
may
> > have been assumed that everyone participating in the standard has
> > been
given
> > a copy of the P&Ps and have read or reviewed the chain of IEEE
> > policies
to
> > understand this. Since this important point may be missed by all
> > participating in DASC standards, I've cc'ed the DASC reflector.
> >
> >>>I have extracted 6.1.1 from the IEEE-SA Operation Manual which
> >>>states
> >
> > this requirement. Since no group wishes to do work on previously
> > copyrighted material that is included in a standard, permission in
> > the
DASC
> > standards has generally been secured at the beginning of the
> > project.
This
> > is not a requirement, but certainly nobody wishes to waste their
> > time to only have a contributor refuse to assign copyright.
> >
> >>>6.1.1 Project Authorization Request (PAR)
> >>>
> >>>As part of the initial PAR procedure, the committee or working
> >>>group
> >
> > shall appoint a chair (or official
> >
> >>>reporter) who shall sign a Copyright Agreement acknowledging that
> >>>the
> >
> > proposed standard constitutes a
> >
> >>>"work made for hire" as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as
> >>>to
any
> >
> > work not so defined, any rights or
> >
> >>>interest in the copyright to the standards publication is
> >>>transferred
to
> >
> > the IEEE. Except as noted below, the
> >
> >>>IEEE is the sole copyright owner of all material included in the
> >
> > standard.
> >
> >>>At the time of PAR completion, any previously copyrighted material
> >
> > intended for inclusion shall be
> >
> >>>identified. The working group is responsible for receiving written
> >
> > permission to use all copyrighted material
> >
> >>>prior to RevCom submittal. Sample form letters are available in the
IEEE
> >
> > Standards Style Manual.
> >
> >>>Within the IEEE-SA Operation Manual, one will also find
> >>>restrictions
> >
> > that are placed on a working group as to what it can accept during
> > its operation. We all know that we never sign NDAs to participate
> > in the standard committees and that the groups cannot accept
> > confidential information or copyrighted information. This extends
> > beyond what is
placed
> > into a draft standard and includes such things as email, but is
> > broad to include any communication. The relevant clause to
> > reference is 4.1.1.5. Again, a working group can incorporate
> > copyrighted material in a draft,
but
> > before it is approved by RevCom, copyright release and/or assignment
> > is required. As I have seen the DASC operate in the past, these
> > copyright releases and assignments are generally made in advance of
> > approval so
the
> > owner cannot hold a standard hostage at the end of the development
process.
> >
> >>>4.1.1.5 Confidentiality Statements and Copyright Notices on
> >
> > Communications
> >
> >>>The IEEE-SA Standards Board and its committees operate in an open
> >
> > manner. To that end, no material
> >
> >>>submitted to the IEEE-SA Standards Board or its committees will be
> >
> > accepted or considered if it contains
> >
> >>>any statement that places any burden on the recipient(s) with
> >>>respect
to
> >
> > confidentiality or copyright. Any
> >
> >>>communication, including electronic mail, containing language with
> >>>such
> >
> > restrictive wording will not be
> >
> >>>accepted or considered.
> >>>
> >>>It should be noted that this policy does not apply to IEEE
> >>>copyrighted
> >
> > materials, such as draft standards. In
> >
> >>>the event that copyrighted materials are to be incorporated in an
> >>>IEEE
> >
> > standard, an acceptable copyright
> >
> >>>release or assignment must be obtained from the copyright owner
> >>>prior
to
> >
> > approval of the standard by the
> >
> >>>IEEE-SA Standards Board.
> >>>
> >>>I would also like to clarify the status of eda.org. eda.org is
> >>>owned
by
> >
> > Accellera and operated for the good of industry and the public to
> > foster standards development. In addition to paying to keep the
> > site active
and
> > accessible, we are grateful for the numerous sysadmin volunteers,
> > Sun Microsystems for the donations of hardware for over a decade,
> > the IBIS
team
> > for additional disk storage and Stanford University to allowing us
> > to
keep
> > the machine located at their campus. (Accellera does pays Stanford for
> > network connectivity, power, etc.) We maintain a long-standing
> > relationship with the IEEE Standards Association, IEEE Computer
Society's
> > Design Automation Standards Committee, IEEE Circuits and Systems
> > CANDE group, Geneva based IEC TC93 groups, the Electronic Design
> > Process Subcommittee (EDPS) of the IEEE Design Automation Technical
> > Committee (DATC), and more who have located groups at this website.
> > Accellera
would
> > not want this site abused by anyone to circumvent the
> >
> >> es
> >>
> >>> tablished practices of these well respected groups.
> >>>
> >>>>From this email, and other messages to the VHDL reflector and DASC
> >
> > reflector I sense a great deal of frustration on standards
> > development.
We
> > all benefit from standards. Consumers are offered choice of
interoperable
> > solutions, competition is based on features, price, implementation,
> > etc.
and
> > an assurance that your data is portable and in a format not
> > controlled
by a
> > single vendor. I can only imagine what design life would be like if
> > we
went
> > back to the pre-EDIF days when every company had their own format
> > and
design
> > data was barely interoperable.
> >
> >>>I stand by my previous email that a conversation with the IEEE-SA
> >>>is
> >
> > more in order to explore options.
> >
> >>>And, this is one of the reasons I believe corporate/entity
participation
> >
> > in the DASC standards groups is a benefit. The DASC has very weak
business
> > connections to the IEEE-SA. I have attempted to broaden this line
> > of thinking in the DASC and I understand it resulted in a religious
> > war.
> >
> >>>Regards,
> >>>
> >>>Dennis
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: owner-vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org
> >
> > <mailto:owner-vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org> ] On Behalf Of Tim Davis
> >
> >>>Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 8:35 PM
> >>>To: David Bishop
> >>>Cc: Peter Ashenden; vhdl-200x-ft@eda.org; John Cooley
> >>>Subject: ALERT -- IEEE stinks up the house! [Was Re: [vhdl-200x-ft]
> >>>New
> >
> > version of VHDL code]
> >
> >>>David,
> >>>
> >>>You should immediately, and without reservation, place your own
> >
> > copyright on every single one of those files which you personally
created.
> > Especially the floating point work developed for both Verilog and
> > VHDL.
> >
> >>>IMMEDIATELY (with emphasis)
> >>>
> >>>Then repost them on the public, non-ieee EDA.ORG web server as a
> >>>giant
> >
> > zip file (or even better post them to Sourceforge). As far as I
> > know,
you
> > haven't published the code directly to the listserver and EDA.ORG
> > isn't owned by the IEEE. Let the IEEE lawyers come forward. I think
> > they would promply loose their case and perhaps 50% of the IEEE
> > membership after
they
> > are found guilty of attempting to steal your hard work for their own
profit.
> >
> >>>These are not a work made for hire and the IEEE has absolutely no
rights
> >
> > in them. If this Claudio Stanziola person continues with this
reprehensible
> > line of Bulls**t then I think every single one of us should drop our
IEEE
> > membership on the spot, write editorials to all the major EE
> > magazines,
and
> > generally scream FOUL at the top of our lungs.
> >
> >>>In the event that Mr. Stanziola believes me to be wrong on this
> >>>point
> >
> > then I challenge him to publish the contract with your signature on
> > it stating that you are developing materials for them in a work made
> > for
hire
> > and have turned over copyrights to them for your intellectual
> > property.
> >
> >>>--
> >>>Aspen Logic, Inc.
> >>>by: Tim Davis, President
> >>>
> >>>David Bishop wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Peter Ashenden wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>David and colleagues,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I received a note from Claudio Stanziola, the IEEE-SA's IP and
> >>>>>legal person, regarding the posting of the package files. He
> >>>>>indicated that public posting of IEEE copyrighted material is
> >>>>>against IEEE policy, and requested
> >>>>>that the material be kept in a protected area.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>I feel very strongly that these packages NEED to be part of the
> >>>>public domain. If they are not, all of our hard work on
> >>>>VHDL-200X-FT won't get used. The reason that it took
> >>>>"numeric_std" so long to be adopted was because vendors did not
> >>>>have free access to the source
code.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I've asked him for clarification of what kinds of material should
> >>>>>be protected and to whom the material should be accessible. I'm
> >>>>>still awaiting a reply.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Please. I feel that I have made a major mistake in donating the
> >>>>fixed point and floating point packages if this is the case.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Meanwhile, please be aware that we may be required to take action
> >>>>>to limit access in some way. I'll advise as soon as I can.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Limiting access may make it impossible to actually verify these
> >
> > packages.
> >
> >>>>I have several thousand lines of test vectors, just for the
> >>>>updates to the current packages, and they are not exhaustive. We
> >>>>will need to
make
> >>>>them publicly available not only for debugging, but to get them
> >>>>used
and
> >>>>our new standard accepted.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--
> >> John
> >> jwill@AstraGate.net
> >> John Michael Williams
> >>
> >
> >
>
Received on Tue Aug 10 05:43:54 2004