They do look similar, but they do not look the same to me. <4.1 Subject to Article 4.2 below, each MEMBER shall use its reasonable endeavours, in particular during the development of a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION where it participates, to inform ETSI of ESSENTIAL IPRs in a timely fashion. In particular, a MEMBER submitting a technical proposal for a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION shall, on a bona fide basis, draw the attention of ETSI to any of that MEMBER's IPR which might be ESSENTIAL if that proposal is adopted. >
The particular issue emphasized particularly, and in particular, is the case of a member participating in, and promoting some aspect of, a standard and any intellectual property affected by the adoption of that proposal, rather than a shotgun approach where all standards required timely disclosure, even if a member is not participating, was dropped
It seems to me the generality is de-emphasized and the particularity particularized. But maybe in legalese it means the opposite.
GSM was developed years or even a decade before QCOM joined the Search for Extra-TDMA Intelligence [SETI]. So there is no obligation on QCOM to provide or disclose or advise or worry about giving away their intellectual property to some standard which has been developed. Membership of SETI doesn't mean any intellectual property a member has is up for grabs to support further development of any previously established standard such as GSM.
The "family of standards" business seems dodgy. Surely each one has its own standard. GSM GPRS EDGE W-CDMA and maybe revisions and subsequent standards.
QCOM never had an interest in development of the GSM standard to a better technological position, with or without royalty payments, [though 5% of all GSM/GPRS/EDGE sales might have been a good strategy]. All QCOM was interested in was making CDMA-based standards work, including W-CDMA, NOT GSM-derived competition. If GSM stuff died, all to the good.
Mqurice |
