1 / 15

Slides for Class #3 ASU Technology Standards Seminar February 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

Slides for Class #3 ASU Technology Standards Seminar February 8, 2010 Brad Biddle. Introduction. Taxonomy / “How”. Business strategy / “Why”. Antitrust. IPR: RAND v. RF. IPR(+): “Openness”. IPR: Patent pools. Policy: private stnds & law. Policy: Role of government. Case study: China.

happy
Download Presentation

Slides for Class #3 ASU Technology Standards Seminar February 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Slides for Class #3 ASU Technology Standards Seminar February 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

  2. Introduction Taxonomy / “How” Business strategy / “Why” Antitrust IPR: RAND v. RF IPR(+): “Openness” IPR: Patent pools Policy: private stnds & law Policy: Role of government Case study: China Student presentations Student presentations Student presentations *

  3. Introduction Taxonomy / “How” Business strategy / “Why” Antitrust IPR: RAND v. RF IPR(+): “Openness” IPR: Patent pools Policy: private stnds & law Policy: Role of government Case study: China Student presentations Student presentations Student presentations *

  4. But first: let’s revisit last week’s discussion questions

  5. Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs) Consortia (sometimes “SIGs”) “A collaboration of stakeholders with the common goal of the standardization of a specific technology or application” Formal, recognized standards development orgs (SDOs) 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” Regional e.g. ETSI, COPANT National Coordination bodies: e.g. CESI, ANSI Accredited SSOs: e.g. TIA, INCITS, NEMA, SAE  Develop “Specifications”  Develop “Standards” -Based on taxonomy described in IPO Standards Primer (Sept. 2009)

  6. Consortia structure framework Hybrid (contract/ incorporated) SIG Licensing program Contractual SIG Incorporated SIG Other . … under “just publish” model … promoters only, “just publish” … contractual promoters group plus 501(c)(6) implementers forum for adopters, compliance program (eg USB) … 501(c)(6) that covers promoter, contributor and adopter relationships, compliance program, marketing (eg PCI-SIG, DLNA) IEEE-ISTO programs (eg Blade.org, Kantara) … w/ bilateral licensing … promoters only, contribute to diff. org. (eg MINA) Patent pools (eg MPEG-LA, OPA) … w/ non-assert pledge (eg OSP, ISP) Public-private partnerships (eg, 3GPP, SGIP … … contractual promoters group plus related LLC that manages adopters, compliance program, [limited patent pool] (eg HDMI) … 501(c)(6) that provides marketing and compliance testing re 3rd party spec (eg HomeGrid) … w/ contributors & adopters, one-to-many license commitments (eg EHCI) … promoters, contributors, adopters; multiple specs (eg IPMI) … … 501(c)(6) that manages open source software development (eg Linux Foundation) … promoters, contributors, adopters; multiple specs plus compliance program (eg MXM (?)) … contractual promoters group plus related LLC that manages contributor and adopter relationships, key licensing (eg AACS) … [LLCs?] Informal open source projects

  7. Readings: Shapiro and Varian, Information Rules (1999) http://www.inforules.com/

  8. Chapter 1 “Information Economy” / http://www.inforules.com/powerpt/overview.ppt

  9. Chapter 7 “Networks & Positive Feedback” / http://www.inforules.com/powerpt/network.ppt

  10. Chapter 8 “Cooperation & Compatibility” / http://www.inforules.com/powerpt/standard.ppt

  11. Chapter 9 “Waging a Standards War” http://www.inforules.com/powerpt/war.ppt

  12. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=872715 http://platformleadership.com/articles/platformentry.pdf

  13. -- Gawker & Cusumano, Platform Leadership (Harvard Business School Press, 2002) http://www.platformleadership.com/articles/Case%20Folio.pdf

  14. IT hardware Telecom Consumer electronics Software Content protection Different standardization IP models, institutions, practices and cultures

  15. Pure R&D firm Integrated firm Pure manufacturing firm • Easy: • No commitment • RAND Easy: RF Hard strategic decision Recoup R&D costs via product sales, licensing, or both? Business strategy and IP strategy are inexorably linked

More Related