1 / 29

Slides for Class #11 ASU Technology Standards Seminar April 12, 2010 Brad Biddle

Slides for Class #11 ASU Technology Standards Seminar April 12, 2010 Brad Biddle. Introduction. Taxonomy / “How”. Business strategy / “Why”. Antitrust. Guest discussion re USB. IPR: RAND v. RF. IPR(+): “Openness”. IPR: Patent pools. Policy: private stnds & law.

ashtyn
Download Presentation

Slides for Class #11 ASU Technology Standards Seminar April 12, 2010 Brad Biddle

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Slides for Class #11 ASU Technology Standards Seminar April 12, 2010 Brad Biddle

  2. Introduction Taxonomy / “How” Business strategy / “Why” Antitrust Guest discussion re USB IPR: RAND v. RF IPR(+): “Openness” IPR: Patent pools Policy: private stnds & law Policy: Role of government Student presentations Student presentations 3/22 3/29 4/5 4/12 * 4/19 4/26

  3. Different standardization history, policies, practices and cultures

  4. Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs) Consortia (sometimes “SIGs”) “A collaboration of stakeholders with the common goal of the standardization of a specific technology or application” Formal, recognized standards development orgs (SDOs) International “Big I” or “FISDOs”: ITU, ISO, IEC, JTC1 [“Little I”: e.g. ASTM, IEEE] Special Interest Groups (SIGs) “focus on a single standard for a specific technology or industry” “[usually] limited to development and possibly promotion” “generally short-lived” Alliances “develop multiple related standards for a technology” “may offer… logo and certification programs, marketing…” “life cycle may be relatively long” Regional e.g. ETSI, COPANT National Coordination bodies: e.g. CESI, ANSI Accredited SSOs: e.g. TIA, INCITS, NEMA, SAE  Develop “Specifications”  Develop “Standards” -Based on taxonomy described in IPO Standards Primer (Sept. 2009)

  5. Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs) Consortia or “SIGs” Formal standards development orgs (SDOs) Spec licensing programs Lightweight contractual SIGs, spec dev only Complex 501(c)(6) orgs w/ spec dev, C&I and marketing programs Small ANSI-accredited SDOs ISO, IEC, ITU, JTC1

  6. http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/NSSC/USSS-2005%20-%20FINAL.pdfhttp://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/NSSC/USSS-2005%20-%20FINAL.pdf

  7. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1415424

  8. Key proposal by Winn: EU would recognize consortia-developed standards that meet certain criteria

  9. http://www.talkstandards.com/strategic-ict-standardization-by-china/http://www.talkstandards.com/strategic-ict-standardization-by-china/

  10. http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/04/01/china%E2%80%99s-latest-draft-disposal-rules-for-patents-in-standards-a-step-forward/http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/04/01/china%E2%80%99s-latest-draft-disposal-rules-for-patents-in-standards-a-step-forward/

More Related