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 <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> 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.