Intellectual property standards: how do YOU behave?

Above: once a standard is accepted, it can be difficult to break out ...

Do we love industrial standards, which enable entire industries to come together and set the technical specifications that all must adopt -- and pay for -- if they want to compete, or do we hate them for their ability to manipulate the market and stifle non-standard innovation? We might get some answers to the lovability of standards when the results of the "Study on the Interplay between Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)" are known. This study, commissioned last December by the European Commission's Enterprise and Industry Directorate General, is in the hands of a consortium coordinated by Fraunhofer (Germany). According to the project's website,
"The aim of this fact-finding study is to provide a sound factual basis on the above interplay for possible policy development in the area of European standardisation and innovation. In the context of the study, we conduct a survey among enterprises owning IPRs (intellectual property rights) as well as enterprises implementing standards. The copyright on the standardization documents as such is not considered.
In the survey, we focus on essential IPRs, in general patents, which disclose and claim inventions that are required to implement a given standard. It can be either used according to Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing conditions or Royalty Free (RF; understood as royalty free licensing that may be subject to other FRAND conditions). We cover standards, which are released either by formal standardisation bodies, like ISO, CEN-CENELEC, ETSI and the various national standardisation bodies, or by standardisation consortia, like IEEE, IETF, OASIS, OMA or W3C. In general, we cover all such organisations under the term standards setting organisations (SSOs).
We have identified your enterprise [naturally, the IPKat weblog] based on public available information as either owning essential IPRs or having implemented especially standards containing IPRs. Your participation will take about 20 minutes and will help to produce an objective and representative picture of the issue and also a benchmarking of your company's behaviour in relation to the other companies active in the market.

We ask you to answer the questionnaire by September 17th, 2010".
Disappointingly, all answers are treated in confidence. Still, if you want to participate in the survey, you can check out the questions here.
Intellectual property standards: how do YOU behave? Intellectual property standards: how do YOU behave? Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, July 22, 2010 Rating: 5


  1. Isn't the Fraunhofer Society, which gets a considerable part of its revenue from standard-essential patents, notably MPEG-related patents, a somewhat biased observer in this subject? (They should know it well, though)

  2. Yet another bl**dy survey, with zillions of little boxes to check and brilliant questions such as "1. What approximate share of the standards, relevant for your enterprise, is covered by essential IPRs? 0% 1%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76%-100%" Do they honestly expect that people will make an effort to figure out what the surveyor actually means when in reality the answers collected from a (probably) statistically insignificant number of questionnaires filled by an unverified sample will eventually be massaged in some meaningless number?

  3. In my opinion, Standards and intellectual property rights are separate entities and one should not override the other.

    If one invents something new, it may meet a standard but standards should in no way negate the rights of the property.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.