Re: Standards-essential patents under RAND licensing
Absolutely nothing. We're screwed. That's why one has to laugh out loud when we charter a work group to produce a royalty-free version of foo, because there are encumbered versions of foo out there. Unless the people with the rights to foo are participating and have offered their rights as part of the standardization process, what will be produced will almost certainly not be royalty-free, unless an active, conscious effort is made to ensure the encumbrances in the existing foos are not present in the new foo. On Jan 10, 2013, at 5:04 PM, tglassey wrote: > On 1/10/2013 1:22 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: >> Recent actions by the US Department of Justice, the US Patent Office, >> the US Federal Trade Commission (which handles antitrust and consumer >> protection matters), and the US International Trade Commission (which >> has the power to exclude imports which violate US patents) suggest >> that US officials are starting to understand the proper way to handle >> "standards-essential patents", that is, patented inventions which are >> incorporated into standards and the patent owner has promised to >> license under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms. It seems >> that in some cases, patent owners have not followed through to issue >> the required licenses, and then prosecuted other standard-users based >> on patent infringement. >> >> In particular (from the New York Times article linked below): >> >> Over the years [...] companies took Motorola at its word and >> developed products assuming they could routinely license Motorola's >> patents. But Motorola later refused to license its standard-essential >> patents and sought court injunctions to stop shipment of rival >> products. >> >> "After Google purchased Motorola [...] it continued these same >> abusive practices." >> >> In recent months, the F.T.C. has issued position papers and filed >> friend-of-the-court briefs, opposing the motions for injunctions using >> standard patents. The Justice Department and European regulators have >> echoed the commission's stance. >> >> "Justice Department and Patent Office Issue Policy Statement on >> Patents" >> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/justice-department-and-patent-office-issue-policy-statement-on-patents/ >> "On Google, F.T.C. Set Rules of War Over Patents" >> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/technology/in-google-patent-case-ftc-set-rules-of-engagement-for-battles.html?_r=0 >> "United States Department of Justice and United States Patent & >> Trademark Office Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential >> Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments" >> http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf >> >> Dale >> > > > What do you do where a patent predates any standards use of the IP. I > understand the issues of developing IP but what about IP that already existed > before the standards processes incorporated it into their work product? > > Todd > > -- > Regards TSG > "Ex-Cruce-Leo" > > //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended > recipient. >
Re: Standards-essential patents under RAND licensing
> "tglassey" == tglassey writes: tglassey> What do you do where a patent predates any standards use of the IP. I tglassey> understand the issues of developing IP but what about IP that already existed tglassey> before the standards processes incorporated it into their work product? I think that it depends upon whether the owner of the patent was involved in producing the standard. If not, and nobody knew of the patent, there is certainly a problem. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[
Re: Standards-essential patents under RAND licensing
On 1/10/2013 1:22 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: Recent actions by the US Department of Justice, the US Patent Office, the US Federal Trade Commission (which handles antitrust and consumer protection matters), and the US International Trade Commission (which has the power to exclude imports which violate US patents) suggest that US officials are starting to understand the proper way to handle "standards-essential patents", that is, patented inventions which are incorporated into standards and the patent owner has promised to license under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms. It seems that in some cases, patent owners have not followed through to issue the required licenses, and then prosecuted other standard-users based on patent infringement. In particular (from the New York Times article linked below): Over the years [...] companies took Motorola at its word and developed products assuming they could routinely license Motorola's patents. But Motorola later refused to license its standard-essential patents and sought court injunctions to stop shipment of rival products. "After Google purchased Motorola [...] it continued these same abusive practices." In recent months, the F.T.C. has issued position papers and filed friend-of-the-court briefs, opposing the motions for injunctions using standard patents. The Justice Department and European regulators have echoed the commission's stance. "Justice Department and Patent Office Issue Policy Statement on Patents" http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/justice-department-and-patent-office-issue-policy-statement-on-patents/ "On Google, F.T.C. Set Rules of War Over Patents" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/technology/in-google-patent-case-ftc-set-rules-of-engagement-for-battles.html?_r=0 "United States Department of Justice and United States Patent & Trademark Office Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments" http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf Dale What do you do where a patent predates any standards use of the IP. I understand the issues of developing IP but what about IP that already existed before the standards processes incorporated it into their work product? Todd -- Regards TSG "Ex-Cruce-Leo" //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Standards-essential patents under RAND licensing
Recent actions by the US Department of Justice, the US Patent Office, the US Federal Trade Commission (which handles antitrust and consumer protection matters), and the US International Trade Commission (which has the power to exclude imports which violate US patents) suggest that US officials are starting to understand the proper way to handle "standards-essential patents", that is, patented inventions which are incorporated into standards and the patent owner has promised to license under "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms. It seems that in some cases, patent owners have not followed through to issue the required licenses, and then prosecuted other standard-users based on patent infringement. In particular (from the New York Times article linked below): Over the years [...] companies took Motorola at its word and developed products assuming they could routinely license Motorola's patents. But Motorola later refused to license its standard-essential patents and sought court injunctions to stop shipment of rival products. "After Google purchased Motorola [...] it continued these same abusive practices." In recent months, the F.T.C. has issued position papers and filed friend-of-the-court briefs, opposing the motions for injunctions using standard patents. The Justice Department and European regulators have echoed the commission's stance. "Justice Department and Patent Office Issue Policy Statement on Patents" http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/justice-department-and-patent-office-issue-policy-statement-on-patents/ "On Google, F.T.C. Set Rules of War Over Patents" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/technology/in-google-patent-case-ftc-set-rules-of-engagement-for-battles.html?_r=0 "United States Department of Justice and United States Patent & Trademark Office Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments" http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf Dale
