Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkral who wrote (144577)	8/27/2006 9:19:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

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

To: rkral who wrote (144577)	8/28/2006 3:38:08 AM
From: lml	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

"If you examine the sentence a little closer, you will notice it says "inform ETSI of ESSENTIAL IPRs" ... not "inform ETSI of his/her/its own ESSENTIAL IPRs" or "inform ETSI of that MEMBER's ESSENTIAL IPRs". The previous ETSI policy provided: "4.1 Each MEMBER shall use its reasonable endeavours to timely inform ETSI of ESSENTIAL IPRs it becomes aware of. 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 current policy provides: "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." Both provide: "4.2 The obligations pursuant to Clause 4.1 above do however not imply any obligation on MEMBERS to conduct IPR searches." The position you take is but one interpretation, but it is clearly not dispositive. There is other language in Sec. 4.1 that suggests "Essential IPRs" relate to THAT member's IPRs. If you care to distinguish b/w THAT member's IPRs, & all other IPRs of which THAT member might become aware, then the issue to address is what constitutes "reasonable endeavours" & against what standard will the member's actions be measured to determine whether a duty arises? Clearly, one impetus behind the most recent revision was to "heighten" the standard to which certain members will be held with respect to the duty to disclose. If one steps back & OBJECTIVELY attempts to interpret the INTENT of the article, one may conclude that (i) a member who submits a technical proposal for a standard or specification be held to the highest standard; (ii) based upon the most recent revision, a member who "participates" during the development of a standard or specification will be held to a lesser, but still heightened standard . . . during the development of the standard or spec; & (iii) each member not submitting, nor participating in the development of a standard or spec, be held a standard, but somewhat less than members described in (ii). Clearly, each member, regardless of its role in the standard is not held to the same standard. Otherwise, there would be no need for the "in particular" clauses within Article 4.1, & there certainly would have be no need to endorse the latest revisions to Article 4.1. So, again, the question comes down to what constitutes "reasonable endeavors?" If the member is not submitting nor participating, it's gonna be held to a lower standard than otherwise.