The limits to IPR standardization policies as evidenced by strategic patenting in UMTS

Telecommunications Policy

Volumn 33, Issue 1-2, 2009, Pages 80-97

  Bekkers, Rudi ^a   West, Joel ^b  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

3G; IPR policy; Mobile phones; Standardization; W CDMA

Indexed keywords

CODE DIVISION MULTIPLE ACCESS; ELECTRIC REACTORS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MOBILE DEVICES; MOBILE PHONES; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; PLANNING; STRATEGIC PLANNING; TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT; TELEPHONE; TELEPHONE SETS;

3G; EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS INSTITUTES; FIRM STRATEGIES; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; IPR POLICY; MOBILE PHONE TECHNOLOGIES; PATENT POLICIES; POTENTIAL CHANGES; POTENTIAL IMPACTS; THIRD GENERATIONS; W-CDMA;

STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 59649128205     PISSN: 03085961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2008.11.003     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. 3G Licensing (2006). NTT Corporation joins the W-CDMA Patent Licensing as a licensor. Press release, March 21.
2. Albert M.B., Avery D., Narin F., and McAllister P. Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents. Research Policy 20 3 (1991) 251-259
3. ARIB (1998). Japan's Proposal for Candidate Radio Transmission Technology on IMT-2000: W-CDMA, ARIB IMT-2000 Study Committee. Tokyo: Association of Radio Industries and Businesses. URL: 〈http://www.arib.or.jp/IMT-2000/Data/Proposal.pdf〉.
4. ARIB. List of essential property rights (IPRs) for ARIB STD-T63, Version 1.00 (2000), Association of Radio Industries and Businesses, Tokyo
5. ATIS (2005). ATIS patent information. Alliance for telecommunications industry solutions. Accessed November 2005. URL: 〈http://www.atis.org/tc/patpolicy.asp〉.
6. Bekkers R. Mobile telecommunications standards: GSM, UMTS, TETRA, and ERMES (2001), Artech House, Boston
7. Bekkers R., Duysters G., and Verspagen B. Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM. Research Policy 31 7 (2002) 1141-1161
8. Besen S.M. The European telecommunications standards institute: A preliminary analysis. Telecommunications Policy 14 6 (1990) 521-530
9. Blind, Knut, Cremers, Katrin, & Müller, Elisabeth, (2007). The influence of strategic patenting on companies' Patent Portfolios. Zentrum fuer Europaeische Wirtschaftsforschung, Discussion Paper No. 07-013. Available at SSRN: 〈http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=971357〉.
10. Blind K., Edler J., Frietsch R., and Schmoch U. Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy 35 5 (2006) 655-672
11. Buitenwerf E. Considerations on network interfaces for third generation mobile telecommunication systems. In: Weber J.H., Arnbak J., and Prasad R. (Eds). Wireless networks: Catching the mobile future. Proceedings of a conference on personal, indoor and mobile radio communications (PIMRC '94) (1994), IOS Press, Amsterdam
12. Chiao B., Lerner J., and Tirole J. The rules of standard-setting organizations: An empirical analysis. Rand Journal of Economics 38 4 (2007) 905-930
13. Cohen, Wesley M., Nelson, Richard R., & Walsh, John P., (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). Working paper W7552, National Bureau of Economic Research.
14. Criscuolo, Paola, & Verspagen, Bart, (2005). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor versus examiner citations in European patents. ECIS working papers 05.06, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Eindhoven University of Technology.
15. Denton F.R., and Heald P.J. Random walks, non-cooperative games, and the complex mathematics of patent pricing. Rutgers Law Review 55 4 (2003) 1175-1288
16. ETSI (2004). Rules of procedure of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. November 30, 2004. In ETSI Directives, December 2004, pp. 16-60.
17. ETSI (2005). Intellectual property rights (IPRs); essential, or potentially essential, IPRs notified to ETSI in respect of ETSI standards, ETSI SR 000 314 V1.14.1 (2005-04). France: European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Sophia Antipolis.
18. ETSI (2006). ETSI IPR Policy, Annex 6 of ETSI Rules of Procedure, European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Sophia Antipolis, France, November 22, URL: 〈http://www.etsi.org/legal/documents/ETSI_IPRPolicy.pdf〉, accessed 25 May 2007.
19. Franzinger M.R. Latent dangers in a patent pool: The European commission's approval of the 3G wireless technology licensing agreements. California Law Review 91 6 (2003) 1693-1727
20. Gandal N., Salant D., and Waverman L. Standards in wireless telephone networks. Telecommunications Policy 27 5-6 (2003) 325-332
21. Garrard G.A. Cellular communications: Worldwide market development (1998), Artech House, Norwood, MA
22. Goodman, David J., & Myers, Robert A. (2005). 3G cellular standards and patents. In Proceedings of 2005 IEEE wireless communications and networking conference (pp. 415-420).
23. Granstrand O., Patel P., and Pavitt K. Multi-technology corporations: Why they have 'distributed' rather than 'distinctive core' competencies. California Management Review 39 4 (1997) 8-25
24. Hall B.H., Jaffe A.B., and Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citations. Rand Journal of Economics 36 1 (2005) 16-38
25. In: Hillebrand F. (Ed). GSM and UMTS: The creation of global mobile communication (2003), Wiley, Chichester, England
26. INTEREST (2006). Report on case studies. INTEREST Consortium Report D06, European Commission Contract 503 594, URL: 〈http://www-i4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Interest/D04.pdf〉.
27. Iversen, Eric J. (1999). Standardization and intellectual property rights: ETSI's controversial search for new IPR procedures. In Proceedings of the first IEEE conference on standardisation and innovation in information technology, Aachen, Germany (pp. 55-63).
28. Jaffe A.B., and Lerner J. Innovation and its discontents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it (2004), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
29. Jaffe A.B., and Trajtenberg M. Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy (2002), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
30. Krechmer K. Technical standards: Foundations of the future. ACM StandardView 4 1 (1996) 4-8
31. Lanjouw J.O., and Schankerman M. Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition. Rand Journal of Economics 32 1 (2001) 129-151
32. Lea G., and Hall P. Standards and intellectual property rights: An economic and legal perspective. Information Economics and Policy 16 1 (2004) 67-89
33. Lemley M., and Shapiro C. Patent holdup and royalty stacking. Texas Law Review 85 7 (2007) 1991-2050
34. Lerner J., and Tirole J. Efficient patent pools. American Economic Review 94 3 (2004) 691-711
35. Mock D. The Qualcomm equation (2005), AMACOM, New York
36. PA Consulting Group (2002). Essential patent rights in 3G wireless will win or lose companies millions. Press release, September 11, URL: 〈http://www.paconsulting.com/news/press_release/(2002)/pr_(2002)0911.htm〉.
37. PA Consulting Group (2007). Essential intellectual property in 3GPPP-FDD, Issue N-March (2007) unpublished research report, Cambridge, UK, March.
38. Rysman, Marc, & Simcoe, Tim, (2007). A NAASTy alternative to RAND pricing commitments, working paper, University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management.
39. Shapiro C. Antitrust limits to patent settlements. Rand Journal of Economics 34 2 (2003) 391-411
40. Sherry E., and Teece D. Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation. Research Policy 33 2 (2004) 179-191
41. Steinbock D. The Nokia revolution: The story of an extraordinary company that transformed an industry (2001), AMACOM, New York
42. Teece D. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15 6 (1986) 285-305
43. Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand Journal of Economics 21 1 (1990) 172-187
44. Trajtenberg M., Henderson R., and Jaffe A.B. University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. In: Jaffe A.B., and Trajtenberg M. (Eds). Patents, citations, and innovation (2002), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 51-87
45. West J. Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation?. In: Chesbrough H., Vanhaverbeke W., and West J. (Eds). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (2006), Oxford University Press, Oxford 109-133