Standard Development Organizations, Intellectual Property, and Standardization: Fundamentals and Recent Proposals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Tsai
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Development Organizations ◽  
Standard Development

Standardization and Intellectual Property Rights

2000 ◽  
pp. 80-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric J. Iversen
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Information And Communication Technologies ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Technology Infrastructure ◽  
Ict Industry ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Technical Standardization ◽  
Standard Development

In today’s environment of rapidly evolving information and communication technologies (ICTs), technical standardization is said to be confronted by a “minefield” of intellectual property rights (IPRs). Patents and other industrial IPRs that might belong to individual developers of technology have the potential to undermine the collective pursuit of technical standardization that might serve the common interests of the sector or industry. This tension between the individual and the collective, between the development of technology and its diffusion, is however by no means new; it is an inherent feature of standard development as an institution of innovation. The fact that this tension has only recently been converted into conflict raises a host of interesting questions about standardization in the evolving environment of the ‘digital age’. In this chapter, we will address some of these. We are especially interested in the fundamental question concerning the roles of standard development organizations and IPRs in the “technology infrastructure” (Tassey, 1995) and how these roles are “co-evolving” (Nelson, 1995) with the rapidly developing ICT industry. The contention is that this process of coevolution is bringing what are initially complementary functions in the innovation process into increased confrontation. In this chapter such questions will be explored in terms of innovation-theory in which the role this ‘technology infrastructure’ plays is explicitly recognized. The discussion of this relationship moreover will be largely presented in terms of a case study, featuring the controversy that arose during the standardization of the now popular GSM system, produced by the European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI).

An Empirical Examination of Impact

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-171
Author(s):  
Kirti Gupta ◽  
Georgios Effraimidis
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Empirical Examination ◽  
Development Organizations ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Ieee Standards ◽  
Standards Development ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Ipr Policy ◽  
Specific Definition

In February 2015, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-Standards Association (IEEE-SA)—one of the largest standards development organizations (SDOs)—adopted highly controversial changes to its intellectual property rights (IPR) policy. It introduced a specific definition of fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms. The aim of this article is to explore how the new patent policy has impacted different aspects of standards development within IEEE. Our analysis focuses on the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (IEEE 802 LMSC), whose Working Groups have been responsible for the design and development of widely used technologies such as Wi-Fi and Ethernet. The empirical findings suggest a decline in Letters of Assurance, with several patent holders reluctant to license under the new FRAND terms. We also find that the number of new projects initiated (or Project Authorization Requests; PARs) in the intellectual property(IP)-intensive IEEE standards (namely the 802 WGs) has recently decreased, suggesting a potential slowdown of the growth rate of innovation after the policy change.

Patent and Antitrust Problems Revisited in the Context of Wireless Networking

2011 ◽  
pp. 149-165
Author(s):  
Gary Lea
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Ieee 802.11 ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Wireless Networking ◽  
Domain Name ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Development Organizations

The author seeks to illustrate some of the ongoing problems that patents present for those seeking to standardize in the ICT field. The chapter illustrates these problems by drawing on patent and international trade disputes surrounding the rollout of IEEE 802.11 family (colloquially, “WiFi”) technologies during 2003 and 2004. It then presents several solutions including the introduction of a more systematic approach to dispute resolution by standards development organizations (SDOs) based around ADR procedures derived from the domain name Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), corresponding changes to dispute handling in international trade disputes and, in the long term, alternation to intellectual property laws to allow for appropriately-tailored standardization exceptions (at least at the level of interoperability).

scholarly journals HOW MANY STANDARDS IN A LAPTOP? (AND OTHER EMPIRICAL QUESTIONS)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Bradford Biddle
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Laptop Computer ◽  
Development Organizations ◽  
Patent Pool ◽  
Standards Development

An empirical study which identifies 251 technical interoperability standards implemented in a modern laptop computer, and estimates that the total number of standards relevant to such a device is much higher. Of the identified standards, the authors find that 44% were developed by consortia, 36% by formal standards development organizations, and 20% by single companies. The intellectual property rights policies associated with 197 of the standards are assessed: 75% were developed under “RAND” terms, 22% under “royalty free” terms, and 3% utilize a patent pool. The authors make certain observations based on their findings, and identify promising areas for future research.

Standards, the Future, and Designers

1992 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 448-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim A. Carter
Keyword(s):  
Design Process ◽  
Development Organizations ◽  
Variety Of Groups ◽  
The Future ◽  
Standard Development

This paper explores the growing relationship between HCI developers and HCI standards. It includes a comprehensive background of WHO (more than just users and developers), WHAT (there are standards and then there are Standards), WHERE (a variety of HCI standards are coming from a variety of groups), WHEN (standard development takes time), WHY (standards are inevitable). It then discusses HOW these standards will effect HCI developers and in particular the HCI design process and compliance with HCI standards. It concludes with agendas of standard related activities both for HCI standardizers and for HCI development organizations.

scholarly journals Organizational Structure And Standard Development Procedures Of standard Development Organizations——Comparative Research Based On Domestic And Foreign Perspectives

2020 ◽  
Vol 214 ◽  
pp. 02043
Author(s):  
Zhu Xianghua
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Structure ◽  
Social Organization ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Information Platform ◽  
Social Organizations ◽  
Development Organizations ◽  
Foreign Standard ◽  
National Information ◽  
Standardization Organization ◽  
Standard Development

This paper takes the typical foreign standard development organizations IEEE, ASTM, W3C, and IETF as examples to analyze the characteristics of organizational structure and standard developing procedures. These four organizations are typical representative of foreign SDOs which can be divided into two categories, one is represented by IEEE and ASTM which are legal entities and their standardization organization structure and standard development procedures are relatively fixed. The other is represented by W3C and IETF, which are relatively loose and open and their standardization organizations and standard development process are more flexible. At the same time, this paper also selects the top ten social organizations that are active on the Chinese national information platform of social organization standard. Compared with foreign social organizations, it is found that their standardization organization structures are not transparent enough and too concentrated. It also found that the standard development process of Chinese social organization is relatively simple and lack of innovation.

Licensing Terms for IoT Standard-Setting

2019 ◽  
pp. 204-217
Author(s):  
Matt Heckman
Keyword(s):  
Competition Law ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Active Participation ◽  
End User ◽  
Development Organizations ◽  
Specific Choice ◽  
Eu Commission ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Standard Development

The development of 5G and IoT standards requires an active participation of small and medium-sized companies (SMEs). These SMEs do not always have the resources and expertise to participate in the work of standard development organizations (SDOs). The valuation of the patents in standards can be based on “license for all” or “end-user” concepts. A specific choice for use-based licensing terms by an SDO might drive SMEs more towards standard-setting in consortia. The chapter will discuss the competition law aspects of both licensing concepts for SMEs and the recent communication in this field by the EU Commission.

scholarly journals Future Direction of IMIA Standardization

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (01) ◽  
pp. 105-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kimura ◽  
S. Ogishima ◽  
A. Shabo ◽  
I. K. Kim ◽  
C. Parisot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Informatics ◽  
Global Alliance ◽  
Development Organizations ◽  
Health Care Informatics ◽  
Integrating The Healthcare Enterprise ◽  
The Status ◽  
Future Direction ◽  
Care Informatics ◽  
Standard Development

Summary Objectives: Standardization in the field of health informatics has increased its importance and global alliance for establishing interoperability and compatibility internationally. Standardization has been organized by standard development organizations (SDOs) such as ISO (International Organization for Standardization), CEN (European Committee for Standardization), IHE (Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise), and HL7 (Health Level 7), etc. This paper reports the status of these SDOs’ activities. Methods: In this workshop, we reviewed the past activities and the current situation of standardization in health care informatics with the standard development organizations such as ISO, CEN, IHE, and HL7. Then we discussed the future direction of standardization in health informatics toward “future medicine” based on standardized technologies. Results: We could share the status of each SDO through exchange of opinions in the workshop. Some WHO members joined our discussion to support this constructive activity. Conclusion: At this meeting, the workshop speakers have been appointed as new members of the IMIA working groups of Standards in Health Care Informatics (WG16). We could reach to the conclusion that we collaborate for the international standardization in health informatics toward “future medicine”.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document