IPR and standards: can one reconcile opposing viewpoints?
The comments by Qualcomm Inc, on a white paper on Modernising ICT Standardisation in the EU – The Way Forward (see http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/standards/extended/index_en.htm for the context) offers IPR owners' perspective on IPR policies in relation to standards ( see: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/files/consultation_standardisation_2009/014_qualcomm_en.pdf ).
Another perspective is given in the paper: IPR misuse: the core issue in standards and patents by Xuan Li and Baisheng An, from the South Centre. This paper can be found at: http://www.southcentre.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1553&Itemid=69
Can we reconcile these opposing viewpoints?
For instance in order to accelerate the speed of difussion of environmentally sound technologies ?
For background, see http://www.scidev.net/en/news/speed-up-climate-tech-transfer-urges-un-meeting.html and http://www.scidev.net/en/climate-change-and-energy/clean-technology-and-copenhagen/features/climate-change-s-tech-transfer-challenge.html
Clarification added March 8, 2010:
(changed link) The paper by Xuan Li and Baisheng An can be found here: http://www.southcentre.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=1405&Itemid=69
Clarification added March 29, 2010:
Marty, in Patent Landscaping Innovations Group, gave an answer to the question, looking into the drivers for standards development by private sector.
The earning incentives do indeed matter for private sector initiative in this area: standards will leverage privately held IPR portfolios (see also Qualcomm's comments cited before).
On the other hand, the private sector, operating from a competitive "my product/service to my profit" perspective may insufficiently appreciate the social savings/risk-mitigation/growth potential that standards have in evolving network markets (leading to the similar and competing standards frustrating adoption).
My viewpoint is that the public sector's moderating role in the information technology and knowledge economy (defending the social benefits alongside the private benefits) is too weak ... to the extent that I would talk about "institutional failure".
In below presentation, I introduce the concept of "architecture commons" as a vehicle to make the boundary between "intellectual property" and "intellectual infrastructure" more crisp.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28999584/Global-Information-Commons-in-a-Multi-level-Perspective
Clarification added April 5, 2010:
For two "ongoing dialogues" related to the theme, see:
1. At http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/04/01/china%E2%80%99s-latest-draft-disposal-rules-for-patents-in-standards-a-step-forward/
comments by George T. Willingmyre, P.E. on China's latest draft disposal rules.
Those disposal rules seem to be a suitable instrument to achieve such a balance?
1. The European Commission has launched a public consultation on the review of the European standardization system. Deadline for comments is 21 May. Document and form to submit the comments are available at the URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/public-consultation/index_en.htm
Clarification added August 14, 2010:
3. The case “Oracle vs Google on Java in Android !”, cited below, is likely to be pertinent to the Question 13 of the Review of the European Standardization System
Details at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35811761/Oracle-s-complaint-against-Google-for-Java-patent-infringement
The boundary of patents and the ownership of standards (and architecture) in contemporary technology stacks is likely to be close to the core of the issue.
The hypothesis of "Institutional gaps in the expanding socio-technical landscape" (sheet 6 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/35400115/Institutions-and-Enterprise-Interoperability ) may be put to a test?
A solution direction is presented in the right column of sheet 9.
Relevant remarks (on the ownership of standards) at: http://www.atria.us/content/2-study-question-13.
Answers
There are no answers to this question.
