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

Guru गुरु Guru at ITforChange.net
Thu Feb 28 00:49:17 EST 2013 

On 02/27/2013 07:47 PM, GTW wrote:
> Congratulations and thanks  to Jamie for bringing the matter of 
> licensing patents essential to practice a standard to the attention of 
> this list. This topic indeed has global implications.   However IMO it 
> is not at all  clear what are proper and helpful  roles of government 
> intervention to address problems that  arise.   I  prefer  private 
> sector market based solutions over  government interventions with 
> their attendant many  unforeseen  and unanticipated consequences.
>

George

You mean that Government interventions are attendant with many "many 
unforeseen  and unanticipated consequences. "

while (unregulated) private sector market based solutions have entirely 
anticipated consequences ....  like the derivatives disaster, from which 
the world is still trying to recover.

(though it  is understandable why a private sector representative whose 
work typically is "representing US business interests to national and 
international organizations;...+" would want a laissez faire situation
Sometimes I think we have too much of US business representation :-)  
here....

But worse than either nightmare - state control or private sector 
control .... would be an unholy alliance between the two where the lines 
between the two get increasingly blurred (as is many times the case with 
US Govt. and US based trans-nationals)... see "The Revolving Door Spins 
from Sea to Shining Sea" for one reason why this blurring is happening 
http://www.nationofchange.org/revolving-door-spins-sea-shining-sea-1361976538

regards
Guru
+ http://gtwassociates.com/gtw/index.htm

> Fortunately IMO  it is  not true that the DOJ and USPTO statement 
> http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf   calls for 
> compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents as 
> the title of this email thread contends.  The document's title more 
> closely describes its purpose and content, "POLICY STATEMENT ON 
> REMEDIES FOR STANDARDS-ESSENTIAL PATENTS SUBJECT TO VOLUNTARY F/RAND 
> COMMITMENTS"   IMO one of its purposes is to help courts and the US 
> International Trade Commission understand what are the nuances of 
> issues involving standards and patents in current litigation and 
> requests for ITC exclusion orders.  It also nudges standards 
> developing organizations around the world to consider how their 
> polices and procedures  address potential problems that may arise with 
> their standards.
>
> Recently the US Federal Trade Commission FTC also proposed some 
> actions to address problems it perceived in this space.  I disagreed 
> with aspects of both of these proposals. I disagreed in the first case 
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/rboschgmbh/00013-85359.pdf   for 
> example when FTC  proposed to require royalty free licensing  of some 
> patents FTC themselves agreed were not essential to practice a 
> standard. I disagreed  in the second case for example 
> http://ftc.gov/os/comments/motorolagoogle/563708-00013-85543.pdf when 
> FTC proposed to require many steps before a  patent holder could begin 
> to  seek legal  remedies in matters involving infringement of patents
>
> It is true there are global  problems and issues that arise related to 
> matter of licensing patents essential to practice a standard.  These 
> problems and issues deserve global examination and discussion.  IMO 
> potential solutions to these issues need to balance  encouragement for 
> the many positive contributions and role of Intellectual Property to 
> global standard setting with the needs of potential license holders to 
> practice global standards on a reasonable basis.   IMO government 
> intervention mandating solutions risks upsetting that balance
>
> George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
> President GTW Associates
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:03 AM
> To: Jamie Love
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Riaz K Tayob
> Subject: Re: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call 
> for compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
>
> Important - yes.
>
> Related to internet governance in any shape or form - no.
>
> Which is why I must repeat my plea that we retain focus.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 27-Feb-2013, at 14:13, Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the DOJ/PTO decision is pretty important, because it (1)
>> recognizes the problem that thousands of exclusive rights presents to
>> developers of new services and products, and (2) is directed at
>> standards, which are at the core of the Internet's operation.
>> Exclusive rights have become an outdated and much abused paradigm for
>> patents and copyrights in a wide range of contexts, and governments
>> have been slow to fashion new paradigms.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> "exceptionalism", "rentiers" - the point would be made much better 
>>> without such stale and overused ideological catchphrases.
>>>
>>> Anyway - there is plenty of recorded government intervention in the 
>>> patent system. Worldwide, and in the United States.
>>>
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>
>>> On 27-Feb-2013, at 13:53, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Conceptions of the ecosystems of Internet Governance differ, 
>>>> particularly as relates to legitimacy or exceptionalism issues.
>>>>
>>>> At a similar level of abstraction, what this shows is that national 
>>>> choices can have extra territorial effect, namely the policy of low 
>>>> quality patents in the US and the relegation of disputes to the 
>>>> legal system.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, there is the local US tension between the old intel 
>>>> prop rentiers in the Pharma (20 year patent) and recording 
>>>> industries (70 y plus copyright) vs the more dynamic and fast 
>>>> moving ICT industry; and perhaps this is an indication that the US 
>>>> has decided to take action on these matters, in order to reap what 
>>>> it has sown. It does indicate that even the sacred cow of the 
>>>> patent system is not beyond the bounds of intervention, which at 
>>>> this level of abstraction should attract critiques of governmental 
>>>> intervention *which for some is presumptively bad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2013/02/27 08:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>> Actually...one might geopolitically view the USPTO policy change 
>>>>> as primarily motivated at forcing a truce among device 
>>>>> manufacturers/patent holders.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
>> http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040,
>> Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140.
>> twitter.com/jamie_love
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/ce9505ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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

More information about the Governance mailing list