slides for class #7 asu technology standards seminar march 8, 2010 brad biddle

20
1 Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

Upload: tracy

Post on 16-Jan-2016

32 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle. Introduction. Taxonomy / “How”. Business strategy / “Why”. Antitrust. Student presentations Guest discussion re USB. IPR: RAND v. RF. IPR(+): “Openness”. IPR: Patent pools. Policy: private stnds & law. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

1

Slides for Class #7

ASU Technology Standards Seminar

March 8, 2010

Brad Biddle

Page 2: 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

Page 3: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

3

Everyone loves “open standards”!

Page 4: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

4

Page 5: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

5

… but we can’t agree what they are

Page 6: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

6

ITU

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

Page 7: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

7

. . .

ANSI

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

Page 8: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

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

Page 9: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

9

Tsilas

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

Page 10: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

10Krechmer

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

Page 12: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

12Perens

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

Page 13: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

13

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

Page 14: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

14

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

Page 15: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

15

DeNardis (“maximal openness” definition)

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

Page 16: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

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

Page 17: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

17

Page 18: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

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

Page 19: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

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

Page 20: Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

20

Maximal openness

Closed

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