Emerging ways to address the reemerging conflict between patenting and technological standardization

Industrial and Corporate Change

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 901-931

  Bekkers, Rudi ^a   Iversen, Eric ^b,c   Blind, Knut ^d,e,f  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b NORDIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN INNOVATION   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

^d TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^e FRAUNHOFER FOKUS   (Germany)

^f ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; STAKEHOLDER; STANDARD (REGULATION); STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 84865082099     PISSN: 09606491     EISSN: 14643650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icc/dtr067     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aoki, R. and S. Nagaoka (2004), 'Coalition formation for a consortium standard through a standard body and a patent pool: theory and evidence from MPEG2, DVD and 3G presented to the conference on IT innovation,' Tokyo, December 2004, IIR Working Paper WP05-01.
2. Baron, J. and H. Delcamp (2010), 'Strategic inputs into patent pools,' Cerna Working Paper.
3. Bekkers, R. (2001), Mobile Telecommunications Standards: GSM, UMTS, TETRA and ERMES. Artech House: Boston, MA.
4. Bekkers, R., K. Blind, H. Coenen, E. Iverson, K. Jacobs and K. Hossain (2006), 'Case studies on the interface between research and standardisation, and case studies on patent pools as a coordination mechanism,' Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme, STREP, Priority 8, Contract No. 503 594.
5. Bekkers, R. and J. West (2009), 'The limits to IPR standardization policies as evidenced by strategic patenting in UMTS,' Telecommunications Policy, 33(1-2), 80-97.
6. Bekkers, R., R. Bongard and A. Nuvolari (2011), 'An empirical study on the determinants of essential patent claims in compatibility standards,' Research Policy, 40, 1001-1015.
7. Berger, F., K. Blind and N. Thumm (2012), 'Filing behaviour regarding essential patents in industry standards,' Research Policy. (forthcoming).
8. Berlind (2005), 'In raising ante on definition of "open", Sun shuts its critics up'. From ZDNet Blog Between the Lines (29 September 2005), http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1949.
9. Blind, K. (2003), 'Patent pools - a solution to patent conflicts in standardisation and an instrument of technology transfer,' in T. Egyedi, K. Krechmer and K. Jakobs (eds), Proceedings of the Third IEEE Conference on Standardisation and Innovation in Information Technology. Delft: TU Delft, pp. 27-35.
10. Blind, K. (2011), 'An economic analysis of standards competition: the example of the ISO ODF and OOXML standards,' Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 373-381.
11. Blind, K., J. Edler, R. Frietsch and U. Schmoch (2006), 'Motives to patent: empirical evidence from Germany,' Research Policy, 35(5), 655-672.
12. Blind, K. and E. Iversen (2004), 'The Interrelationship between IPR and standardization: patterns and policies,' in F. Bousquet, Y. Buntzly, H. Coenen and K. Jakobs (eds), Proceedings of the Ninth EURAS Workshop on Standardisation. Wissenschaftsverlag Mainz in Aachen: Aachen, pp. 227-248.
13. Brenner, S. (2009), 'Optimal formation rules for patent pools,' Economy Theory, 40, 373-388.
14. Cargill, C. F. (1989), Information Technology Standardization: Theory, Process and Oranizations. Digital Press: Bedford, USA.
15. Department of Justice (2007), Response to Institute of Electrical and Inc.'s Request for Business Review Letter. DoJ: Washington, DC.
16. Dewatripont, M. and P. Legros (2008), '" Essential" patents, FRAND royalties and technological standards,' ECARES Working Papers 2008-2010, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Ecares.
17. Dupuis, P. (2002), 'The Franco-German, tripartitie and quadripartite co-operation from 1984-1987,' in F. Hillebrand (ed.), GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communications. John Wiley & Sons: UK.
18. Eltzroth, C. (2009), 'IPR policy of the DVB project: negative disclosure, FR&ND arbitration unless pool rules OK, Part 2,' Journal of IT Standards & Standardization Research, 7(2), 1-22.
19. ETSI (2008), 'Non-availability of licences for TETRA standards in North America'. Document ETSI/B69(08)14.
20. Farrell, J. (1989), 'Standardization and intellectual property,' Jurimetrics Journal, 30(Fall), 35-50.
21. FTC (2011), 'The evolving IP marketplace: aligning patent notice and remedies with competition, A Federal Trade Commission report,' Washington, DC, USA.
22. Geradin, D., A. Layne-Farrar and A. J. Padilla (2008), 'The complements problem within standard setting: assessing the evidence on royalty stacking,' Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, 14(2), 144-176.
23. Goodman, D. J. and R. A. Myers (2005), '3G cellular standards and patents,' Proceedings from IEEE WirelessCom2005.
24. Gordon, G. G. (2002), 'Analyzing IP License Restrictions Under the Antitrust Laws: A General Outline of Issues,' (A submission to the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission Joint Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy).
25. Grindley, P. (1995), Standards, Strategy and Policy: Cases and Stories. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
26. Haug, T. (2002), 'The market fragmentation in Europe and the CEPT initiatives in 1982,' in F. Hillebrand (ed.), GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communications. John Wiley & Sons: UK.
27. Heller, M. A. and R. S. Eisenberg (1998), 'Can patents deter innovation?' The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, 280, 698-701.
28. Iversen, E. (1995), 'Conflicts between innovation and diffusion in new telecommunications systems,' STEP-Working Paper.
29. Iversen, E. (2001), 'Patenting and voluntary standards: the tension between the domain of proprietary assets and that of "public goods" in the innovation of new network technologies,' Science Studies, 14(2), 66-82.
30. Iversen, E. (2002), 'Standardization and intellectual property rights: ETSI's controversial search for new IPR-procedures,' in S. Bolin (ed.), The Standards Edge. Bolin Communications: Ann Arbor, MI.
31. Jung, S. K. and A. Mollo (2009), 'TransCore and freedom of contract,' Bloomsberg Law Reports, 3(27), 1-4.
32. Junghon, K. (2004), Technical Standard-Setting, Patent-Pooling, and Competition Policy. Institute of Intellectual Property (IIP) Bulletin: Tokyo, Japan.
33. Kobayashi, B. H. and J. D. Wright (2009), 'Intellectual Property and Standard Setting. ABA Handbook on the Antitrust Aspects of Standards Setting', 2010; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 09-40, Virginia, USA.
34. Krattiger, A., R. T. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, J. A. Thomson, A.B. Bennett, K. Satyanarayana, G. D. Graff, C. Fernandez and S. P. Kowalski (eds) (2007), Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices. MIHR: Oxford, UK and PIPRA: Davis, USA.
35. Lemley, M. A. (2002), 'Intellectual property rights and standard-setting organizations,' California Law Review, 90, 1889.
36. Lemley, M. A. (2007), 'Ten things to do about patent holdup of standards (and one not to),' Boston College Law, 48, 149.
37. Lemley, M. A. and C. Shapiro (2006), 'Patent holdup and royalty stacking,' Texas Law Review, 85, 1991-2049.
38. Lerner, J., M. Strojwas and J. Tirole (2003), 'The structure and performance of patent pools: empirical evidence,' Working paper.
39. Lerner, J. and J. Tirole (2004), 'Efficient patent pools,' American Economic Review, 94(3), 691-711.
40. Lin, D. (2002), 'Research versus development: patent pooling, innovation and standardisation in the software industry,' The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 274, 274-309.
41. Luna, L. (2007), 'Reality game,' Mobile Radio Technology, 25(1), 46-52.
42. Mazzoleni, R. and R. Nelson (1998), 'The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate,' Research Policy, 27, 273-284.
43. Merges, R. P. (2001), 'Institutions for Intellectual Property Transactions: The Case of Patent Pools,' in R. Dreyfuss, D.L. Zimmerman and H. First (eds), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property. Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 123-166.
44. Prywes, D and N Stump (2004), 'United States Federal Trade Commission Docket No. 9302 Amicus Curiae Brief of JEDEC Solid State Technology Association In Support Of Complaint Counsel's Appeal Of Initial Decision, In The Matter Of Rambus Inc., A Corporation Amicus,'. http://www.Ftc.Gov/Os/Adjpro/D9302/040416jedecamicusbrief.Pdf.
45. Professional Mobile Radio (2009), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Mobile_Radio.
46. Shapiro, C. (2001), 'Navigating the patent thicket: cross licensing, patent pools, and standard setting,' in Jaffe et al. (ed.), Innovation Policy and the Economy. National Bureau of Economics & The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 119-150.
47. Sidak (2009), 'Patent holdup and oligopsonistic collusion in standard-setting organizations', Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5(1), 123-188.
48. USPTO (2000), Patent pools: a solution to the problem of access in biotechnology patents? Alexandria, USA.
49. Weiss, M. and M. Spring (1992), 'Selected intellectual property issues in the standards development process,' Telecommunication Policy Research Conference. September 1992, Solomons MD.