Patents and Standards in the ICT Sector: Are Submarine Patents a Substantive Problem or a Red Herring?

International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research (IJITSR)

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 41-83

  Soininen, Aura ^a  

^a LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

information and communication technology; patent strategies; patents; standardization; submarine patents

Indexed keywords

EID: 85001874154     PISSN: 15393062     EISSN: 15393054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jitsr.2007010104     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. Administrative Complaint (2002), Docket No 9302, 18 June 2002.
2. Alkio, M. (2003, March 9). Kovaa peliä patenteilla. Helsingin Sanomat, p. E3.
3. ANSI. (2003a). Guidelines for implementation of the ANSI Patent Policy.
4. ANSI. (2003b). Patent policy.
5. Asaravala, A. (2004, April 24). Forgent sues over JPEG patent. Wired News. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,63200,00.html
6. Balto, D.A., & Wolman, A.M. (2003). Intellectual property and antitrust: General principles. IDEA The Journal of Law and Technology, 43(3), 396–474.
7. Bekkers, R., Duysters, G., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure. The case of GSM. Research Policy, 31, 1141–1161.
8. Bekkers, R., Verspagen, B., & Smits, J. (2002). Intellectual property rights and standardization: The case of GSM. Telecommunications Policy, 26(3–4), 171–188.
9. Berlind, D. (2002a, April 16). IBM drops Internet patent bombshell. Tech Update.
10. Berlind, D. (2002b, April 25). The hidden toll of patents on standards. Tech News on ZDNet. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://news.zdnet.com/2100–9595_22–891852.html
11. Berman, V. (2005, January-February). Is it time to reexamine patent policy for standards? IEEE Design & Test of Computers, 71–73.
12. Bessen, J. (2003). Strategic patenting of complex technologies (Working Paper). Research on Innovation.
13. Blind, K. (2004). The economics of standards. Edward Elgar.
14. Blind, K., Bierhals, R., Thumm, N., Hossain, K., Sillwood, J., Iverser, E., et al. (2002). Study on the interaction between standardisation and intellectual property rights (EC Contract No G6MA-CT-2000–02001, 2002).
15. Blind, K., Edler, J., Nack, R., & Strauβ, J. (2001). Micro- and macroeconomic implications of the patentability of software innovations. Intellectual property rights in information technologies between competition and innovation (Study on Behalf of German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology).
16. In re Bogese II, 303 F.3d 1362, 1367, Federal Circuit (2002).
17. Initial Decision (2004). Docket No 9302, 23 February 2004.
18. Calderone, L.L., & Custer, T.L. (2005, November). Prosecution laches as a defense in patent cases. Flaster Greenberg Attorneys at Law. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.flastergreenberg.com/pdf/PatentArtic_prf3.pdf
19. Caplan, P. (2003). Patents and open standards (White paper prepared for the National Information Standards Organization).
20. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation. Harvard Business School Press.
21. Clark, D. (2002, October). Do Web standards and patents mix? Computer, pp. 19–22.
22. Clark, R. (2002, July 19). Concerning recent patent claims. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.jpeg.org/newsrel1.html
23. Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., & Walsh, J.P. (2000, February). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not) (NBER Working Paper Series).
24. Cunningham, A. (2005). Telecommunications, intellectual property, and standards. In I. Walden, & J. Angel (Eds.), Telecommunications law and regulation. Oxford.
25. DLA. (2004). European intellectual property survey.
26. Eolas Technologies Incorporated and the Regents of the University of California v. Microsoft Corporation, Case Nr. 04–1234, Federal Circuit, 2 March 2005.
27. ETSI. (2005). IPR policy.
28. Farrell, J. (1996). Choosing the rules for formal standardization. UC Berkeley.
29. Federal Trade Commission v. Dell Computer Corp., FTC File No. 931 0097, 2 November 1995.
30. Feldman, R.P., & Rees, M.R. (2000, July). The effect of industry standard setting on patent licensing and enforcement. IEEE Communications Magazine, pp. 112–116.
31. Ferguson, K. (1999). 20/20 foresight. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.forbes.com/1999/04/19/feat.html
32. Forgent Networks. (2006). Intellectual property, '672 patent cases. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.forgent.com/ip/672cases.shtml
33. Frank, S.J. (2002, March). Can you patent an industry standard? IEEE Spectrum.
34. FTC. (2003). To promote innovation: The proper balance of competition and patent law and policy.
35. Graham, S.J.H., & Mowery, D.C. (2002, June 6–8). Submarines in software? Continuations in U.S. software patenting in the 1980s and 1990s. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics of the New and Old Economy-Who is Embracing Whom?, Copenhagen/Elsinore.
36. Granstrand, O. (1999). The economics and management of intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing.
37. Grindley, P. (2002). Standards, strategy and policy. Oxford.
38. Gohring, N. (2005a). Qualcomm files a second suit against Broadcom. InfoWorld. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/10/21/HNqualcommsecondsuit_1.html
39. Gohring, N. (2005b). Qualcomm files patent infringement suit against Nokia. InfoWorld. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/11/07/hnqualcommsuit_1.html
40. GovTrack.us. 109th Congress, H.R. 2795: Patent Act of 2005. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109–2795
41. Hahn, R.W. (2001, March). Competition policy and the new economy. Milken Institute Review, 34–41.
42. Heinze, W.F. (2002, May). Dead patents walking. IEEE Spectrum, 52–54.
43. Hemphill, T.A. (2005, January). Technology standards development, patent ambush, and US antitrust policy. Technology in Society, 27(1), 55–67.
44. Hjelm, B. (2000). Standards and intellectual property rights in the age of global communication: A review of the international standardization of thirdgeneration mobile system.
45. IETF. (2005). Intellectual property rights in IETF technology.
46. Informamedia.com. (2006, March 1). ETSI acts on unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory IPRs. Informamedia.com.
47. IPO. (n.d.). 21st Century Patent Coalition: “Submarine patents” ARE a significant problem. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.ipo.org/contentmanagement/contentdisplay.cfm?contentid=7334
48. ITU-T (n.d.). Patent policy.
49. ITU-T (2005). Patent policy implementation guidelines.
50. Jacobs, P. (2005, December). Qualcomm defends patent licensing programme. wirelessweb. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://wireless.iop.org/articles/news/6/12/6/1
51. Kipnis, J. (2000, July). Beating the system: Abuses of the standards adoption process. IEEE Communications Magazine, pp. 102–105.
52. Kirsch, E.D. (2000). International standards participation: Lessons from Townshend & Dell. International Lawyers Network. The bullet “iln”, 1(2). Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.ag-internet.com/push_news_one_two/internationalstandards.htm
53. Knight, H.J. (2001). Patent strategy for researchers and research managers. John Wiley & Sons.
54. Kratzman, V.A. (2005). Technology transfer mid-term report next step recommendations. FINPRO.
55. Krechmer, K. (2005, January). Communications standards and patent rights: Conflict or coordination? Paper presented at the Economics of the Software and Internet Industries Conference, Tolouse, France.
56. Labsystems Oy v. Biohit Oy. Ho S 94/1922. Finnish Court of Appeal.
57. The Lemelson Foundation. (n.d.). Jerome H. Lemelson. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.lemelson.org/about/bio_jerry.php
58. Lemley, M.A. (2002). Intellectual property rights and standard setting organizations (UC Berkeley Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 84).
59. Lemos, R. (2002, July 23). Finding patent truth in JPEG claims. CNET News.com. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://news.com.com/Finding+patent+truth+in+JPEG+claim/2100–1001_3945686.html
60. Lo, A.M. (Jupiter Networks, Inc). (2002). A need for intervention: Keeping competition alive in the networking industry in the face of increasing patent assertions against standards. FTC/DOJ Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy In the Knowledge-Based Economy-Standard Setting and Intellectual Property, 18 April 2002.
61. Malone, S. (2005, November 1). Microsoft loses Eolas Supreme Court appeal. PC Pro. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news/79431
62. Marasco, A. (ANSI). (2003, October 30). IPR and standards. Presentation at AIPLA.
63. Markoff, J. (2002, July 29). Patent claim strikes an electronics nerve. The New York Times.
64. Megantz, R.C. (2002). Technology management. Developing and implementing effective licensing programs. John Wiley & Sons.
65. Messerschmitt, D.G., & Szyperski, C. (2003). Software ecosystem. The MIT Press.
66. Miele, A.L. (2000). Patent strategy: The manger's guide to profiting from patent portfolios. John Wiley & Sons.
67. Mueller, J.M. (2001). Patenting industry standards. John Marshall Law Review, 34(897).
68. Naraine, R. (2002a, May 8). Nokia calls for 5% cap on 3G patent royalties. internetnews.com. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://internetnews.com/wireless/article.php/1041561
69. Naraine, R. (2002b, May 10). Qualcomm rejects Nokia patent cap proposal. internetnews.com. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.interetnews.com/wireless/article.php/1116381
70. Nokia. (2005a, October 28). Leading mobile wireless technology companies call on European Commission to investigate Qualcomm's anti-competitive conduct. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://press.nokia.com/PR/200510/1018639_5.html
71. Nokia. (2005b, October 28). Leading mobile wireless technology companies call on European Commission to investigate Qualcomm's anti-competitive conduct. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://europe.nokia.com/BaseProject/Sites/NokiaCom_CAMPAIGNS_57710/CDA/Categories/PressEvents/_Content/_Static_Files/transcript.pdf
72. Nokia. (2005c, November 7). Nokia responds to reports of Qualcomm GSM patent infringement suit. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://press.nokia.com/PR/200511/1019958_5.html
73. OASIS. (2005). IPR policy.
74. OECD. (2004). Patents and innovation: Trends and policy challenges. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/12/24508541.pdf
75. OECD. (2005). Compendium of patent statistics. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/24/8208325.pdf
76. Ohana, G. (Cisco Systems, Inc). (2005. October 6). Intellectual property rights: Policies in standard-setting: Areas of debate. In Proceedings of From A to Veeck: Standardization and the Law, 2005 ANSI Annual Conference. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://public.ansi.org/ansionline/Documents/Meetings%20and%20Events/2005%20Annual%20Conference/Legal%20Conference/Ohana-Panel%20I.pdf
77. Out-law.com. (2005, November 31). Mobile-makers say 3G patent licensing breaks antitrust laws. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.out-law.com/page-6280
78. Peterson, S.K. (Hewlett-Packard Company). (2002a). Consideration of patents during the setting of standards. For FTC and DOJ Roundtable, Standard Setting Organizations: Evaluating the Anticompetitive Risks of Negotiating IP Licensing Terms and Conditions Before A Standard Is Set, 6 November 2002.
79. Peterson, S.K. (Hewlett-Packard Company). (2002b). Patents and standard-setting processes. FTC/DOJ Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy, 18 April 2002.
80. Perens, B. (n.d.). The problem of software patents in standards. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html
81. Poltorak, A.I., & Lerner, P.J. (2004). Essentials of licensing intellectual property. John Wiley & Sons.
82. PwC Advisory. (2006). 2006 patent and trademark damages study.
83. Rahnasto, I. (2003). Intellectual property rights, external effects, and anti-trust law. Oxford University Press.
84. Rambus, Inc v. Infineon Technologies AG. No. 01–1449. Federal Circuit, 29 January 2003.
85. Red Herring. (2006, February 3). JPEG patent reexamined. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=15582&hed=JPEG+Patent+Reexamined=sector=Industries=subsector=Computing
86. Regan, K. (2005, July 5). Broadcom suit accuses Qualcomm of antitrust tactics. E-Commerce Times. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/44395.html
87. Reingold, J. (2006, January). Patently aggressive. 102. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/patents.html
88. Rivette, K., & Kline, D. (2000). Rembrandts in the attic. Harvard Business School Press.
89. Sarvas, R., & Soininen, A. (2002, October). Differences in European and U.S. patent regulation affecting wireless standardization. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Wireless Strategy in the Enterprise, Berkeley, California.
90. Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools and standard setting.
91. Shapiro, C., & Varian, H.R. (1999). Information rules. Harvard Business School Press.
92. Shurmer, M., & Lea, G. (1995, June). Telecommunications standardization and intellectual property rights: A fundamental dilemma? Standardview, 3(2).
93. Soininen, A. H. (2005).Open Standards and the Problem with Submarine Patents. Proceedings SIIT 2005 pp. 231–244 4th International conference on standardization and innovation in information technology.
94. Stroyd, A.H. (2000). Lemelson bar coding patents: Attempting to sink the submariner. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.mhia.org/PSC/pdf/Lemelson.PDF
95. Surowiecki, J. (2006, December 26/January 2). Blackberry picking. The New Yorker, Financial Page.
96. Symbol Technologies Inc. v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation. 277 F.3d 1361, 1363. Federal Circuit, 2002.
97. Symbol Technologies, Inc et al. v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation. LP et al., 422 F.3d 1378. Federal Circuit, 2005.
98. Teece, D.J. (2000). Managing intellectual capital. Oxford University Press.
99. Townshend v. Rockwell International Corp. and Conexant Systems, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1011. Northern District of California, 2000.
100. Varchaver, N. (2001, May 3). Jerome Lemelson the patent king. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en90/fall/2003/Lemelson%20Fortune%20may%2014%202001%20article.pdf
101. Vermont, S. (2002). The economics of patent litigation. In B. Berman (Ed.), From ideas to assets. Investing wisely in intellectual property. John Wiley & Sons.
102. Watts, J.J.S., & Baigent, D.R. (2002). Intellectual property, standards and competition law: Navigating a minefield. IEEE, 837–842.
103. Westman, R. (1999, October). The battle of standards-And the road to peace. On-The New World of Communication, pp. 26–30.
104. Wireless Watch. (2005a, November 29). Mobile patents war shifts to email. The Register. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/29/mobile_email_patents_war/
105. Wireless Watch. (2005b, November 15). The Register. Qualcomm IP battle hots up. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/15/qualcomm_ip_battle/
106. Wong, W. (2002, April 18). IBM ebMXL patent plan royalty-free. Tech Update.
107. W3C (2004). Patent policy.