Transcript Standards-Setting, IPR Policies, and “Open Standards” Steve Mutkoski Regional Director, Interoperability & Innovation Microsoft Corporation [email protected].

Standards-Setting,
IPR Policies, and
“Open Standards”
Steve Mutkoski
Regional Director, Interoperability & Innovation
Microsoft Corporation
[email protected]
Standards Overview
• What are standards anyway?
– Technical specification which either does or is intended
to provide a common design for a product
• Why are standards important?
– Networked world; convergence
– One means of fostering interoperability
• How are standards developed?
– By a single company
– By a few companies
– By a large number of companies
2
Defining Types of Standards
• “Open” standards – technical specifications that have
been approved or ratified through an open consensus
based process, publicly available, vendor neutral, licensed
under RAND terms (with or without a royalty or fee)
• Proprietary or Industry standards – technical
specifications maintained by a private entity or group of
cooperating entities, and licensed under commercial terms
Definitions of “Openness”
• “Open” is not a legal term
• “Open” as an adjective
– Can take on many meanings
– Can lead to use as a verb, with adverse impact on
IP and innovation
• Traditional definition of “open standard”
– Standards developed or ratified through an open,
consensus process
– Admission open to all
– Covered by an open and transparent IPR policy
– Contributors license essential IPRs to implementers
on Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND)
terms (with or without royalties/fees)
4
“Open Standard”
• Traditional definition reaffirmed by:
– Global Standards Collaboration (GSC) http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/gsc/gsc10/index.html Resolution GSC-10/04: (Joint Session) Open Standards
– ITU-T - http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/othergroups/ipradhoc/openstandards.html
– American National Standards Institute (ANSI) http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Stand
ards%20Activities/Critical%20Issues%20Papers/Griffin
%20-%20Open%20Standards%20-%2005-05.doc
5
More Recent Definitions…
• New uses of the term and confusion
• “Free to implement”
– Very few standards bodies mandate a RANDZ
approach
– All essential patent claims may not be covered by
such a policy
• “Free to use freely”
– Is there any standards body that mandates such an
approach?
6
Implications of new definitions
• If “open” means royalty free…
– SSO desire to attract key technology holders
– Will they come?
– And the rest of the standards world?
• The latest twist… disclosure obligations
– How much and when should a participant or
contributor disclose about the existence of
patents?
– Requirements for searches?
– About specific license terms?
7
IPR Policy Approaches
• Diversity of approaches is beneficial
– Many puts and takes – different impacts
– Many have different pro-competitive effects and
impacts on incentives to innovate
• RAND
–
–
–
–
Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory
Flexible and adaptable
History of successful balancing of interests
Encourages sharing of IP while preserving incentives to
innovate
8
GSC-11 Resolution – Effective IPR Policies
•
•
…typically provide incentives to interoperate, innovate and compete by:
•
•
respecting intellectual property,
balancing the interests of all stakeholders so that the outcomes are
representative, inclusive and more broadly supported,
•
being open and transparent for all to review and understand,
•
promoting the use of the best technical solutions given commercial
requirements,
•
being consistent with internationally accepted norms such as widely
accepted RAND/FRAND-based intellectual property rights policies,
•
recognizing the right of intellectual property right holders to receive
reasonable and adequate compensation for the shared use of their
technology;
that such effective intellectual property rights policies
(i) encourage participation in standardization and the contribution of valuable
technology,
(ii) stimulate the sharing and adoption of technological advances that otherwise
would be outside the relevant IPR policy,
(iii) stimulate innovation, both in terms of the interoperability technology and
also additional, non-standard features to accommodate customer needs and
consumer choice, and
(iv) solve interoperability challenges in effective ways that are focused and welldefined while preventing splintering (which can undermine the primary
interoperability objective)
9
Business Models Drive IPR Policy Debates
• Companies are in business to maximize profits
• Different standards activities impact different
business models and IP portfolios differently
– IP licensing company – seeking reasonable return
on R&D investment
– Product company – monetize IP through products;
defensive approach in standards
– Services provider – use loss leader business model
to drive monetization of services
– Consulting model – seeking to transfer value
quotient from product/licensed IP to bring value to
consultant offerings
10
Technical standards are not the same as
laws
• Voluntary, consensus standards are developed
in response to marketplace needs
– Standards can and do compete
• Laws are top-down solutions to address a
public safety need or to respond to a
substantive marketplace failure
– May limit choice
– May limit innovation
12
Types of Standards Organizations
Adoption
Broad
Narrow
Umbrella
Organizations
(Open, De Jure)
Consortia (Open)
Special Interest Groups
(Proprietary; Open)
Collaborations (Product; Proprietary)
Influence/ Process Speed
Decrease
Complexity
Increase
Characteristics of Organizations
Standards Org. &
No. of Specs
Org. Structure &
Legal Rep
Characteristics
Collaboration
Usually focused on 1
Bilateral or multi-party
agreement
Few
Parties
Special Interest Group
1 or a few closely related
Multi-party agreement
including some
organizational provisions
Legal Working Group
(LWG)
parties involved make it easy & inexpensive to set up
Informal & flexible procedures
Easy to reach initial consensus and expedite work, very focused
effort
Several options once specs. are developed, effort is finite
Minimal industry momentum
Few
parties make it relatively easy & inexpensive to set up
Flexible operating procedures
Easy to reach initial consensus and expedite work; also very
focused effort
Several levels of participation (Several options once specs are
developed; life of effort is finite
Increased industry momentum
Consortium
Multiple specs. closely
related
Incorporated non-profit
Independent Counsel
works with LWG
Procedures
Umbrella Organization
Many loosely related
Incorporated non-profit
Very
dictated by bylaws and guidelines
More parties make it costly & more involved to set up
Effort is larger in scope and longer in duration
Work is done in a technology area (IETF, W3C, Bluetooth)
Increased industry momentum
formal rules & procedures
Effort is larger in scope and longer in duration
Maximum industry momentum and acceptance