1

Slides for Class #7

ASU Technology Standards Seminar

March 8, 2010

Brad Biddle

2

Introduction

Taxonom

y / “How

”

Business strategy / “W

hy”

Antitrust

IPR

: RA

ND

v. RF

IPR

(+): “O

penness”

IPR

: Patent pools

Policy: private stnds &

law

Policy: R

ole of governm

ent

Case study: C

hina

Student presentations

Student presentations

*S

tudent presentationsG

uest discussion re US

B3/22 3/29 4/5 4/12 4/19 4/26

3

Everyone loves “open standards”!

4

5

… but we can’t agree what they are

6

ITU

http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/othergroups/ipr-adhoc/openstandards.html

7

. . .

ANSI

http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/Critical%20Issues/Open%20Standards/CIP-OpenStandards.doc

8http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/21/05/T21050000050010MSWE.doc

9

Tsilas

http://www.ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_8-10-2005.pdf

10Krechmer

http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.pdf

11http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=19529

12Perens

http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html

13

Rosenhttp://www.rosenlaw.com/DefiningOpenStandards.pdf

14

Ghoshhttp://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/openstandards-IGF.pdf

15

DeNardis (“maximal openness” definition)

http://www.ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_9-13-2009.pdf

16

Maximal openness

Closed: a specification developed by a single company with no avenue for participation by other parties. The spec is unavailable for other parties to use, even for a fee, to develop interoperable products based on the specification. The spec developer owns all the IPR and does not license it under any terms.

DeNardis http://www.ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_9-13-2009.pdf

17

18

‘Conservative’ views: procedural due process,

RAND IPR

Open source-centric views: open

participation, RF IPR

‘A2K-centric’ views: non-traditional innovation

arguments, political and economic emphasis

19

Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs)

Formal, recognized standards development orgs (SDOs)

Consortia (sometimes “SIGs”)

“A collaboration of stakeholders with the common goal of the

standardization of a specific technology or application”

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”

Regionale.g. ETSI, COPANT

NationalCoordination bodies: e.g. CESI,

ANSIAccredited SSOs: e.g. TIA,

INCITS, NEMA, SAE

-Based on taxonomy described in IPO Standards Primer (Sept. 2009)

Develop “Specifications” Develop “Standards”

GENERALLY RAND, PROCEDURALLY ‘OPEN’

MIXED RAND/RF; MIXED PROCEDURAL OPENNESS

20

Maximal openness

Closed

Exercise: where do some of these familiar SIGs/SDOs fall on DeNardis’ scale?