Rajala,
It sounds like you didn't read the whole item. Just in case.....please read and ponder all of below. It's all on the ETSI website!
>>Incorrect claim number 5: "Faced with a protectionist European industrial policy and ETSI's non-objective standard setting process, Qualcomm has been forced to fall back on its IPRs to protect its current customers and its position in the next generation of wireless technology"
ETSI acknowledges that Qualcomm holds CDMA IPRs. In this context the following observation is particularly relevant:
"With respect to proprietary status, AMPS, NA-TDMA, GSM and IS-41 are essentially in the public domain. In the case of CDMA, Qualcomm holds strong intellectual property rights, which it asserts through licensing agreements with an array of equipment vendors……(the growing number of telecommunications standards) covered in part by IPRs has played a major role in the transformation of standards organizations from forums of experts seeking consensus on technical issues into battlegrounds for the assertion of competing commercial interests".
("Standards for personal communications in Europe and the United States", David J. Goodman, Harvard University, April 1998)
ETSI Rules of Procedure (Annex 6, the ETSI Intellectual Property Rights policy) establish that "when an essential IPR relating to a particular standard is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director General of ETSI shall immediately request the owner to give within three months an undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licenses on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions(…). This is the tribute ETSI members pay to non-discrimination, transparency, harmonization and avoidance of unnecessary obstacles to trade.
On August 6, Qualcomm notified to ETSI that "(Qualcomm) is not prepared to grant licenses for the proposed W-CDMA standard in accordance with the terms of Clause 6.1 of the ETSI interim IPR policy". The development of the third generation standards within ETSI will thus progress according to this decision and ETSI's Rules of Procedure. <<
Rajala, if you read the above and read Clause 6.1 then basically what they are saying is that Qualcomm does have IPR that is necessary to W-CDMA. Below is Clause 6.1 and 6.2 relating to IPR.
6.1 When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the owner to give within three months an undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions under such IPR to at least the following extent:
MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE; sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED; repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and use METHODS.
The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate.
6.2 At the request of the European Commission and/or EFTA, initially for a specific STANDARD or a class of STANDARDS, ETSI shall arrange to have carried out in a competent and timely manner an investigation including an IPR search, with the objective of ascertaining whether IPRs exist or are likely to exist which may be or may become ESSENTIAL to a proposed STANDARD and the possible terms and conditions of licences for such IPRs. This shall be subject to the European Commission and/or EFTA meeting all reasonable expenses of such an investigation, in accordance with detailed arrangements to be worked out with the European Commission and/or EFTA prior to the investigation being undertaken.
Rajala, reading Clause 6.2 I would think it likely that ETSI has carried out an investigation of Qualcomms IPRs and conluded that it was necessary to inquire of their intentions. Afterall, why should ETSI say anything if they don't know what their own position should be? And if they do know, wouldn't it tend to support the validity of Qualcomms IPRs regarding W-CDMA if ETSI asked what Qualcomms intentions are? I copied these directly from the ETSI website. Notice how they capitalized the word ESSENTIAL.
W. |
