Slides for Class #4 ASU Technology Standards Seminar February 15, 2010 Brad Biddle. Introduction. Taxonomy / “How”. Business strategy / “Why”. Antitrust. IPR: RAND v. RF. IPR(+): “Openness”. IPR: Patent pools. Policy: private stnds & law. Policy: Role of government. Case study: China.
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
ASU Technology Standards Seminar
February 15, 2010
Taxonomy / “How”
Business strategy / “Why”
IPR: RAND v. RF
IPR: Patent pools
Policy: private stnds & law
Policy: Role of government
Case study: China
ANTITRUST / COMPETITION
Two primary ingredients
Standards: joint action by competitors
Antitrust: suspicious of joint action
PATENT CLAIM B
PATENT CLAIM C
PATENT CLAIM D
“During the standards setting process, Party A deceptively represented that they [had no relevant patents]/[would license on RAND terms] but now is seeking excessive post lock-in royalties.”
“Party B said it would license under certain terms in the past, but now has changed its mind and is demanding more.”
Apple: Nokia's "false" F/RAND promise "enabled Nokia to obtain the 'hold up' power it now abusively seeks to wield."
“The SSO has excluded my technology.”
“The SSO is conspiring to set my royalties too low.”
Soundview v. Sony