Jim,
I wonder what this is going to do to standards committee membership?
First, patents filed/amended AFTER a standard is established are always fraudulently obtained if a chain of events can be established that the new patent contains new ideas that correspond to the standard.
Secondly, patents already filed/finalized BEFORE a standard is established where the patent contains new ideas that match parts of the standard --- this is tricky. But if the company was sitting in and has designs on charging an abnormally high royalty on it, then not revealing them is clearly a problem --- the standards body HAS to have the choice of not establishing a standard that requires a large royalty structure.
If the member is a manufacturer, a normal mode of operation is that the patents in process will be disclosed, and an understanding that royalties if they exist will be minimal, and the standard rule is cross-licensing. In some cases, this may lengthen the standards definition as the major players argue for features on which they have patents on so that they can all just cross-license and pay minimal royalties.
But the sword hanging over everyone is the reality that all manufacturers own patents, and normally they cross-license. This is ok, as the idea is to build their business through manufacturing goods, not to act as toll-collectors.
In any event, non-manufacturing companies participation in standards bodies like this is probably suspect, and sometimes, I think they shouldn't be allowed to contribute to them. jmho.
SbH |
