Posts Tagged ‘FRAND’

A “Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights” in a Global world of standards and competition policies

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

The IPR Strategy recognizes explicitly that IPRs create a host of ways for innovators to extract value and reward, and that each is valid. It recognizes that businesses should not be hampered in finding new models to value their IPR. Most strikingly for the standards world, the Communication expressly recognizes in the context of standardization that licensing is an important part of it and that “many European companies nowadays generate a large part of their revenue through licensing of their IP portfolios (page 5)”. The IPR strategy only refers to standardization once, at page 5, and it is interesting that the text looks only at the importance of IP licensing regimes (and by implication the success of the current FRAND patent policy underlying the global standards world), not only in fostering take up for standards, but in incentivizing repeat contributions to allow the standards to evolve. However, as relates the text’s reference to ‘diligent management of IPR’, the management of IPR should be based on commercial decisions, not state involvement (as occurs in copyright). The GSM patent pool model is not necessarily capable of replication.  The success of UMTS, also referred to in the Communication is based on an open licensing model.  It is up to the owners of IPR to decide how best to manage their IPR, and if they are considering joining a standards organizations that standards organization’s IPR rules are clear and balanced so that potential members can make decisions about participation.
Read More…

Share

Upcoming: Balancing Antitrust and IPR Protection in EU Legislation

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

The IPR Strategy recognizes explicitly that IPRs create a host of ways for innovators to extract value and reward, and that each is valid. It recognizes that businesses should not be hampered in finding new models to value their IPR. Most strikingly for the standards world, the Communication expressly recognizes in the context of standardization that licensing is an important part of it and that “many European companies nowadays generate a large part of their revenue through licensing of their IP portfolios (page 5)”. The IPR strategy only refers to standardization once, at page 5, and it is interesting that the text looks only at the importance of IP licensing regimes (and by implication the success of the current FRAND patent policy underlying the global standards world), not only in fostering take up for standards, but in incentivizing repeat contributions to allow the standards to evolve…..


Read More…

Share

Worth Reading: A Tale of Two Tragedies – A plea for open standards

Monday, April 18th, 2011

A Tale of Two Tragedies – A plea for open standards” by Maurits Dolmans – published recently in the “International Free and Open Source Software Law Review” (www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr) – contrasts and compares the benefits of royalty-free licensing to that of FRAND in the context of the European ICT sector and examines a number of proposed criteria for defining an Open Standard.
Read More…

Share

Summary: EU Standardization – From Formalism to Pragmatism?

Monday, February 28th, 2011

On wednesday February 23, Talkstandards.com held an online open forum to discuss a number of issues related to recent EU policy developments, building upon our December 22nd mini-event “European Interoperability Strategy“.  Two communications released late last year by the European Commission related to e-Government and standardization – the European Interoperability Framework version 2 and updated Guidelines for the assessment of horizontal cooperation agreements – were central to the discussion, particularly the inclusion of FRAND licensing within the EIF specification of a open standard.


Read More…

Share

Standardization, Government Policy and the “Consumerization of IT”

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

The pragmatism with respect to standardization reflected in the EIS and EIFv2 will be an important attribute to these policies in the coming years as governments increasingly grapple with a trend that enterprise CIOs are currently working thru (and have a clear head start on). As I’ve participated in debates with various governments around the world on the need for standardization strategies to help the government as purchaser of technology achieve better interoperability in eGovernment systems, I’ve often seen conversations begin with an “inward” facing focus. The direction of the conversation is often related to aligning internal government systems with other internal government systems and ensuring that a coherent list of standards is in place to guide that internal alignment. I have often noted that this approach falls short in that it only considers half of the equation and, importantly, it leaves the citizen out in the dark. We have to ask, how do citizens plan to connect and communicate with their government?


Read More…

Share

Shortlines: The new European Interoperability Framework

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

This article is co-authored by Susannah Sheppard, Consultant, and Richard Kemp, Senior and Commercial Technology Partner of Kemp Little LLP.

This comment highlights several of the issues we raised in a recently published article that discusses the recently released EIF v2, located at http://www.kemplittle.com/html/stay-posted/publications/short-lines/the-new-european-interoperability-framework.html?SESSIONFRONT=52d1177702a3926ecb525037e483b78a


Read More…

Share

FRAND versus Royalty-Free

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

A number of questions were posed for the upcoming TalkStandards event. This contribution is responsive to the following question:

The EIF v2 sets out attributes of “open specification” as well as a comment which appears to give public administrations some discretion to reference specifications that do not meet these openness criteria “if open specifications do not exist or do not meet functional interoperability needs.”(Section 5.2.1)  How does this differ from the language in EIF v1 and what are the practical implications of this difference in language?


Read More…

Share

A Formal Path Towards Interoperability and Standardisation

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

 

Sharing standards and achieving greater interoperability between different technology platforms has no doubt helped drive a new level of dynamism and innovation in technological development, and supported efforts toward greater efficiency in public services. In Europe, such cooperation is one more step to foster the internal market.


Read More…

Share

Encouraging Openness and Innovation

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

This article is co-authored by James Bryce Clark, General Counsel, and Laurent Liscia, Executive Director, of OASIS

Professor Ganslandt and several previous TalkStandards Forums describe the steady rain of updated policy guidelines on interoperability, standards and competition law that have fallen from the European Commission sky, over the past year.  As the sky clears a bit, it is a good time to look out form under our umbrellas, start assessing the path ahead, and plot out our pathways around the puddles.  Likely there still will be more clouds and rain on the horizon.  But several major themes have emerged, and can be seen more clearly as the bruine politique clears up, or at least abates for a few months:
Read More…

Share

A More Pragmatic Approach to IPR

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

The topic of the forum this week is: EU standardization – from formalism to pragmatism?

The ‘question mark’ depicts an open ended question which leads to other questions:

• Was EU standardization based on formalism?
• Is it now based on pragmatism?
• What do these two terms mean anyway?
Read More…

Share



An active online community where developers, researchers, policymakers and other interested parties can share ideas and collaborate on the global standards system.