[governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Any such standard developed with US Gov funding is now required to be public domain - which is all for the good.

--srs (iPad)

On 27-Feb-2013, at 20:18, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 27.02.13 08:24, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> I agree with Lee's analysis. Do note that the monopoly is for a particular device or class of devices, at the most - with the market still widely open to a range of competing devices.
> 
> While I agree in principle with these opinions, my take on the subject is a bit different.
> 
> First, I fully support this initiative, because I believe this is the right thing to do. Let's hope it will be implemented across the EU too and around the world.
> 
> The current system of 'standards essential patents' is absurd. A bunch of vendors come together and produce an "standard" that is more or less mandatory for everyone. Yet, at the same time, those parties retain patent rights over the technologies they "contributed" to the standard. In essence, they create a new requirement for everyone (the standard) that when you use, and you don't have much choice not to use it, requires you to pay them royalties. Worst of all, they are who sets the royalties and you are at their mercy. (example) Samsung doesn't like Apple, so they ask them outrageous amounts for what they charge someone pennies. (end of example). This is an well known economic phenomena: cartel. Cartels are illegal in many jurisdictions, yet for some strange reason are allowed to exist with standards.
> 
> My preferred solution to this situation would be to require any and all technologies, that are included as part of a standard be put in the public domain (or equivalent). If you don't want your technology becoming public domain, it has no place in standards. You still have the advantage to have already implemented it (let's hope) and know it intimately.
> 
> The solution DOJ and USPTO came to is a milder version, which will still work.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t