Posts Tagged ‘IPR’

New Chinese Regulation of IPRs in Standards?

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

Photo: Yo HibinoChina recently circulated a draft regulation regarding the use of patents in Chinese national standards. The regulation demands that for patents to be eligible for incorporation in standards, they must be made irrevocably available royalty free
Read More…

Is China Standardisation playing different game as other giants?

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

We are afraid today about important economy using standards as barriers to trade or as imposing views on other parts of the world. But is that different behaviour than other large countries did in the past or still do?
Read More…

Should we criminalise the theft of intellectual property?

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

Recently, Trevor Baylis , who invented the wind-up radio, has written to the business secretary urging him to criminalise the theft of intellectual property.

I have known Trevor Bylis when we both spoke at an event in Ireland a few years ago. Trevor is an interesting character and a good speaker. He has raised the profile for IPR and patents here in the UK for many years now ..But I don’t agree with the idea of criminalising people for patent infringement. 
Read More…

How much ex ante is enough?

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

It has been almost 15 years since the Dell consent decree placed firms on notice regarding their obligations to  disclose essential patents in the standard setting process. In the wake of Dell, there has been a huge surge in IPR disclosures. But it is does not seem that all of this disclosure has resolved the uncertainty surrounding IPR in standards. Since Dell, there have been controversies over: what types of IP must be disclosed, and at what stage of the standards process (Rambus); whether commitments are binding on subsequent patent owners (N-Data); and what is meant by a promise to license on Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms (Qualcomm).
Read More…

IPR Licensing and Antitrust – The Transatlantic Divide

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

Competition agencies on both sides of the Atlantic have been keen to pursue cases on IPR licensing in standard setting.  In the United States, it is the Federal Trade Commission leading the charge, with the Dell Corporation decision in 1996, the Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) consent order in 2005, the Negotiated Data (N-Data) settlement of 2008, and the long but ultimately unsuccessful Rambus case that came to a close just this year. In Europe, the European Commission also investigated Rambus, picking up the strands laid out by the FTC and reaching a tentative settlement in June of this year. The EC also opened a formal investigation of Qualcomm in 2007 (after two years of “informal” investigation). And at least one European member state has entered the fray, albeit at the court level rather than at the level of the national competition authority, with the IP-Com v. Nokia litigation in Germany.
Read More…

A competition law perspective

Tuesday, September 1st, 2009

The Commission White Paper on ICT Standardisation – some reflections from a competition law perspective

As other commentators in this forum have already highlighted, the aim of the Commission’s white paper is to large extent unclear. Particularly the introduction and the listed “prominent areas for improvement” appear to reflect a mix of vague policy ambitions (p. 4). If Directive 98/34/EC should be read as constituting “the current EU standardisation policy”, as the Commission suggests (p. 2), the time for an update is probably quite ripe, but then these issues would have deserved a more elaborated treatment.


Read More…

Chinese political involvement in ICT-standardization

Friday, August 21st, 2009

The Chinese government is showing considerable interest in ICT standardization. The Chinese State Council’s official policy clearly states a long term goal to reduce dependency of foreign ICT technology and to reduce payments to foreign innovators.


Read More…

OpenEHR case study

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

The openEHR Foundation is an international non-profit foundation founded in 2000, with the ambition to make interoperable and lifelong electronic health records (EHR) a reality and improve medical care in the information society through the open standard specification openEHR.
Read More…

openEHR – Draft case study

Thursday, May 7th, 2009

[Comments welcome!]

This version 2009-05-07

Domain: eHealth standards, see eHealth standardization map http://www.talkstandards.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/map-ehealth-sso.jpg [accurate?]

The openEHR Foundation is an international non-profit foundation founded in 2000, with the ambition to make interoperable and lifelong electronic health records (EHR) a reality and improve medical care in the information society through the open standard specification openEHR. The foundation is dedicated to the development of specifications, open source software and tools for the creation of adaptable health computing systems and patient-centric electronic health records. The focus in openEHR is not on how different systems exchange data with each other, but on architecture, reference models and especially archetype models for standardization of data, irrespective of the application of such data. The term openEHR is used both for the foundation and its published work. The first version, openEHR 1.0, was released in February 2006, and the latest version, openEHR 1.0.2 was published on New Year’s Eve in 2008. [extent to which openEHR and other SSOs overlap? Specific niche for openEHR?]


Read More…

Where Does Competition Do the Most Good? Some thoughts on the many and diverse roles of competition in standard setting

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

Mention “competition” and “standard setting” in the same sentence and you’re likely to get a wide assortment of reactions. I offer a few thoughts on several layers of competition and how they can affect emerging standards.
Read More…




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