Open standards and the problem with submarine patents

Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology, 2005

Volumn 2005, Issue , 2005, Pages 218-231

  Soininen, Aura H ^a  

^a LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; INTEROPERABILITY; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; PROBLEM SOLVING; STANDARDIZATION; SUBMARINES;

PATENT POLICIES; PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY; SUBMARINE PATENT PROBLEMS;

STANDARDS;

EID: 33845970572     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/SIIT.2005.1563810     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (66)

1. Administrative Complaint In the Matter of Rambus Incorporated (2002). File No. 011 0017, Docket No. 9302, June 18, 2002.
2. AIPPI reports (2001). Summary Report, Question Q 157 The Relationship between Technical Standards and Patent Rights, available at: http://www.aippi.org/reports/q157/q157-Summary-e.htm (last visited 4/12/05).
3. Alkio, M. (2003). Kovaa peliä patenteilla, Helsingin Sanomat, March 9, 2003, p. E3.
4. Alkio, M. & Wik, C. (2004). Kilpailuoikeus. Helsinki: Talentum.
5. ANSI (2003). Patent Policy.
6. ANSI (2003). Guidelines for Implementation of the ANSI Patent Policy.
7. Balto, D.A. & Wolman, A.M. (2003). Intellectual Property and Antitrust: General Principles. IDEA The Journal of Law and Technology, Volume 43, No. 3, pp. 396-474.
8. Berman, V. (2005) Is it Time to Re-examine Patent Policy for Standards?. IEEE Design & Test of Computers, January - February 2005, pp. 71-73.
9. Blind, K.; Bierhals, R.; Thumm N.; Hossain K.; Sillwood J.; Iverser E.; von Reikum, R.. & Rixius, B. (2002). Study on the Interaction between Standardization and Intellectual Property Rights. EC Contract No G6MA-CT-2000-02001.
10. Blind, K. & Thumm, N. (2004). Interrelation between Patenting and Standardization Strategies: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications. Research Policy, Vol 33, Issue 10, December 2004, pp. 1583-1598.
11. Carey J., (1997). Rumble at the Patent Office. BusinessWeek, available at: http://www.businessweek.com/1997/22/b3529141.htm (last visited 4/12/05).
12. Carney, D., Tech Law Journal, availabe at: http://www.techlawjournal.com/ courts/dojvmsft2a/20010628opII.asp (last visited 4/12/05).
13. Caplan, P., (2003) Patents and Open Standards. A white paper prepared for the National Information Standards Organization. Originally published in Information Standards Quarterly, Vol. 14, No 4, October 2003.
14. Carr Law Firm (2003). Down Periscope, The Doctrine of Laches Sinks Patent Application Delay. Ideas on Intellectual Property law, April/May 2003, available at: http://www.texasiplaw.com/files/241212IIPam03.pdf (last visited 4/12/05).
15. Clark, D., (2002) Do Web Standards and Patents Mix?. Computer October 2002, pp. 19-22.
16. Commission vs. Microsoft Corporation, Commission Decision of 24.03.2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty, Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft, Brussels, 21.4.2004, C(2004)900 final. Continental Can, Case 6/72 (1973), ECR 215.
17. Council of the European Union (2005). Adoption of the Council's Common Position on a Directive on the Patentability of Computer-implemented Inventions, 7060/05 (Presse 57), March 7, 2005, available at: http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/ cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/84021.pdf (last visited 4/12/05).
18. CSU L.L.C., Et al. vs. Xerox Corp-, No. 99-1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Dolmans, M. (2002). Standards for Standards. Paper for American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law, Spring meeting.
19. ETSI - Telecom Standards (2000), ETSI IPR policy.
20. Farrell, J. (1996) Choosing the Rules for Formal Standardization. UC Berkeley.
21. Federal Trade Commission (2003). To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy.
22. Forrester, I.S. (2002). Compulsory Licensing in Europe: A Rare Cure to Aberrant National Intellectual Property Rights?. Department of Justice/FTC Hearings, Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy: Comparative Law Topics, May 22, 2002.
23. Graham, S.J.H. & Mowery, D.C. (2002). Submarines in Software? Continuations in U.S. Software Patenting in the 1980s and 1990s. DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics of the New and Old Economy - who is embracing whom?. Copenhagen.
24. Hahn, R.W. (2001) Competition Policy and the New Economy. Milken Institute Review, First Quarter, March 2001, pp. 34-41.
25. Hjelm, B. (2000). Standards and Intellectual Property Rights in the Age of Global Communication - A Review of the International Standardization of Third-Generation Mobile System. Fifth Symposium on computers and Communications, Antibus-Juan Les Pins, France, July 3-6, 2000.
26. Heinze, K., Thomas, Horstemeyer & Risley (2002). Dead Patents Walking. IEEE Spectrum online, available at: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/ WEBONLY/resource/may02/invent.html. (last visited 6/13/05).
27. Hemphill, T. A (2005). Technology Standards Development, Patent Ambush and US Antitrust Policy. Technology in Survey, Volume 27, Issue 1, January 2005, pp. 55-67.
28. Image Technical Services Inc v Eastman Kodak Co, 125 F3d 1195 (1997).
29. IMS Health GmbH & Co. v. NDC Health GmbH & Co C-418/01 (2004).
30. The Internet Society (2005). Intellectual Property Rights in IETF technology, available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt (last visited 7/28/05).
31. In re Dell Computer Corp. 121 FTC 616 (1996).
32. ISO(2001). IPR Policies, available at: http://isotc.iso.ch/livelink/ livelink/fetch/2000/2489/Ittf_Home/ITTF.htm (last visited 7/21/05).
33. Kipnis, J. (2000). Beating the System: Abuses of the Standard Adoption Process. IEEE Communications Magazine, July 2000, pp. 102-105.
34. Krechmer, K. (2005). Communication standards and Patent Rights: Conflict or Coordination. The Economics of the Software and Internet Industries Conference, Toulouse, France, January 2005.
35. The Lemelson Foundation. Jerome H. Lemelson, available at: http://www.lemelson.org/about/bio_jerry.php (last
36. visited 7/13/05).
37. Lemley, M., (2002) Intellectual Property Rights and Standard Setting Organizations. UC Berkeley Public Law and Legal Theory Research Pape Series, No. 84.
38. Lemos, R. (2002) Forgent Claims JPEG Patent. ZDNet News, July 23, 2002.
39. Marasco, A.A. (ANSI), (2003). IPR and Standards. Presentation at AIPLA October 30, 2003.
40. Markoff, J. (2002). Patent Claim Strikes an Electronics Nerve. The New York Times, July 26, 2002.
41. Megantz, R.C., (2002). Technology Management. Developing and Implementing Effective Licensing Programs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
42. Mueller, J.M (2001). Patenting Industry Standards. John Marshall Law Review, Summer 2001.
43. National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Science Resources Statistics. Science and Engineering Indicators 2002, U.S. Patents granted 1986-99, available at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/mmslides/mm06-22/mm06- 22.htm (last visited 4/12/05).
44. OASIS (2005) OASIS Intellectual property Rights Policy. available at: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php (last visited 7/21/05). OECD (2004). Compendium of Patent Statistics, available at: http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/60/24/8208325.pdf (last visited 4/12/05). Peterson, S.K., (2002) Consideration of Patents during the Setting of Standards, for FTC and DOJ Roundtable on
45. November 6, 2002: Standard Setting Organizations: Evaluating the Anticompetitive Rules of Negotiating Intellectual Property Licensing Terms and Conditions Before A Standard is Set.
46. Pitofsky, R.; Patterson, D. & Hooks, J. (2002) The Essential Facilities Doctrine under U.S. Antitrust Law. Antitrust Law Journal Volume 70.
47. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (2002). COM(2002) 92 Final, 2002/0047 (COD), 20.2.2002.
48. Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP)v. EC (Magill), C-214/91P and C-242/91P, (1995), ECR I-0743.
49. Rahnasto, I. (2001). How to Leverage Intellectual Property Rights. Helsinki.
50. Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG, et al 318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. January 29, 2003)
51. Riley, R.J. Pressure on the American Patent System, Part 2: The real cause of submarine patents. available at: http://inventors.about.com/library/ weekly/aa072897.htm (last visited 4/15/05).
52. Sarvas, R. & Soininen, A., (2002) Differences in European and U.S. Patent Regulation affecting Wireless Standardization. International Workshop on Wireless Strategy in the Enterprise, Berkeley, October 2002.
53. Senden, L., (2005). Soft Law, Self-regulation and Co-regulation in European Law: Where do they meet?. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Vol 9.1, January 2005.
54. Shapiro, C., (2001) Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting. NBER Conference on Innovation Policy and the Economy.
55. Shapiro, C. & Varian, H., (1999). Information Rules. A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press.
56. Shurmer, M. & Lea, G. (1995), Telecommunications Standardization and Intellectual Property Rights: A Fundamental Dilemma?. StandardView, Volume 3, No. 2, June 1995, pp. 50-59.
57. Steinman, D.R & Fitzpatrick, D.S., (2001). Antitrust Counterclaims in Patent Infringement Cases: A Guide to Walker Process and Sham-Litigation Claims. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, Number 1, Fall 2001.
58. Stroyd, A.H. (2000). Lemelson Bar Coding Patents -Attempting to Sink the Submariner. available at: http://www.mhia.org/PSC/pdf/Lemelson.PDF (last visited 4/12/05).
59. Symbol Technologies Inc. et al. v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation (Fed. Cir. 2002).
60. Takeuchi, K.H, (2002). Federal Circuit Takes Another Shot at "Submarine Patents" Symbol Technologies Inc. et al. v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation. CASRIP Newsletter, Vol 9, Issue 1, Winter 2002. available at: http://www.law.washington.edu/casrip/ Newsletter/Vol9/newsv9i1us2.pdf (last visited 4/12/05).
61. Teece, D. (2000). Managing Intellectual Capital, Oxford University Press.
62. United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, C.A. 98-1232, Final Judgement June 7, 2000.
63. Varchaver, N. (2001). Jerome Lemelson the Patent King. Fortune, May 3 2001, available at: http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en90/fall/2003/ Lemelson%20Fortune%20may%2014%202001%20article.pdf (last visited 4/12/05).
64. Watts, J.J.S & Bristows, B., (2002) Intellectual Property, Standards and Competition Law: Navigating a Minefield. IEEE, pp. 837-842.
65. AB Volvo v. Erik Veng (UK) Ltd, Case 23/87 (1988) ECR 6211.
66. W3C (2003). Patent Policy, available at: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ Patent-Policy-20030520.html#sec-Requirements (last visited 7/21/05).