The meaning seems reasonably clear to me. The intention is to avoid companies promoting aspects of a standard which involve their own patents without announcing that they have got relevant patents and what those patents are.
If they are involved in development of a standard, they should also say what other patents are involved that they know about, which are owned by somebody else, but they don't have to do searches of patent records.
It's to avoid ambushing and self-dealing in standards development. It's aimed at stopping the GSM Guild [for example] from loading a standard such as W-CDMA with unnecessary or even counterproductive bells and whistles or at least making sure that other people are aware that that company is promoting their own technology, which is ipso facto likely to be more in their own interests than the interests of the standard = the old recusing business where people with a bias should not be acting as judges or doctors for friends and family.
But of course people can't recuse themselves from setting the standards because the people interested in having a standard are probably those who have some financial interest in the development of that standard. Of course they want a standard to be developed which uses their property to see if their hot idea is so hot after all, when tested in the heat and stress of the marketplace.
So, if I go along and join and start standard-setting, I don't have to do patent searches, I should tell the group setting the standard of any patents of which I'm aware and I must tell them about any relevant patents which I own that are involved in that standard [not other standards which might exist]. The intent is to avoid patent ambushes and to ensure patents involved in establishing the standard are known by the group, [without forcing the obligation of patent searches on participants].
So, I could say "Hey, I reckon we should include a stainless steel wheel with superconductor GSRS [TM] instead of those pneumatic tyres" and the group could agree and adopt the idea. None of us would need to do a patent search. But, if I own patents on stainless steel wheels and GSRS [TM] then I have an obligation to point out "I happen to own the rights to that and I'm going to charge like a wounded bull - something like 16% on any vehicle using those wheels, which is a very FRANDly rate for such a great invention as shown by the price of GSM patents. If it was something pathetic like CDMA, I'd only charge 5%, or 4.2%" I don't have to do a patent search to see who owns superconductor technology which would be applicable. Or who else has stainless steel wheel technology.
Clear as mud?
Mqurice |
