200 likes | 301 Views
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.
E N D
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 Policy: Role of government Case study: China Student presentations Student presentations * 3/22 3/29 4/5 4/12 4/19 4/26
ITU http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/othergroups/ipr-adhoc/openstandards.html
. . . ANSI http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/Critical%20Issues/Open%20Standards/CIP-OpenStandards.doc
http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/21/05/T21050000050010MSWE.dochttp://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/21/05/T21050000050010MSWE.doc
Tsilas http://www.ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_8-10-2005.pdf
Krechmer http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.pdf
Perens http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html
Rosen http://www.rosenlaw.com/DefiningOpenStandards.pdf
Ghosh http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/openstandards-IGF.pdf
DeNardis (“maximal openness” definition) http://www.ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_9-13-2009.pdf
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. Maximal openness DeNardis http://www.ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_9-13-2009.pdf
‘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
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 MIXED RAND/RF; MIXED PROCEDURAL OPENNESS National Coordination bodies: e.g. CESI, ANSI Accredited SSOs: e.g. TIA, INCITS, NEMA, SAE Develop “Specifications” Develop “Standards” GENERALLY RAND, PROCEDURALLY ‘OPEN’ -Based on taxonomy described in IPO Standards Primer (Sept. 2009)
Exercise: where do some of these familiar SIGs/SDOs fall on DeNardis’ scale? Maximal openness Closed