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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Qpeeper who wrote (57571)	12/9/2006 1:05:26 AM
From: waitwatchwander	Respond to of 196511

The Effect of Strategic Patenting on Cumulative Innovation in UMTS Standardization home.tm.tue.nl [Another paper floating in from across the pond evaluating UMTS patents] Rudi Bekkers Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies (ECIS), Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Den Dolech 2, P.O. Box 513, 5600 BM Eindhoven, The Netherlands R.N.A.Bekkers@tm.tue.nl Joel West Associate Professor, College of Business, San José State University One Washington Square, San José, CA 95192-0070 USA Joel.West@sjsu.edu Paper for the DIME Workshop on Rules, norms and standards in corporate and sectoral IPR practices when profiting from technological innovations and innovations in creative expressions, March 24th, 2006 Abstract Since the 1990s, intellectual property rights have become increasingly important in the telecommunications sector. In particular, the strategic role of patents played in the GSM standard irrevocably changed the IPR strategies within the sector, increasing both the revenues and barriers provided by telecom patents. The issues raised by GSM foreshadowed comparable impacts of patents upon other ICT standards. These developments parallels broader concerns raised by researchers about the risk that such patents impede the process of cumulative innovation, a problem some have labeled “the tragedy of the anticommons.” After reviewing research on the various controversies regarding patents, cumulative innovation and standardization, we review the evolution of the role of patents in telecommunications standards. We then analyze the role of 1227 unique “essential” patents declared in the standardization of Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), the thirdgeneration successor to GSM. Using a combination of data sources, we show how differences in the timing, nature and scope of patenting activities relate to firms’ business models, competitive position and role in the standardization activity. From this, we offer broader observations about the limits of existing IPR policies and coordination mechanisms, as well as the likely impact of various policy alternatives on patent proliferation in telecommunications standardization.

To: Qpeeper who wrote (57571)	12/11/2006 9:58:37 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196511

A decent paper, a bit dense at times. It unfortunately does not deal with one aspect of NOK's arguments which is independent of patent counting and which forms an important part of the attack on Q : NOK contends that its "essential" patents in UMTS are significant in relation to the IPR in the entire standard, including Q's. And since "essential" IPR is necessary to the implementation of the standard, NOK argues that Q is charging it too much. I should think that determining whether a patent is "essential" to the standard is a fairly easy thing to do since the term is defined as IPR without which the standard could not be implemented. I have unfortunately not seen any study which takes claims that a patent is essential to UMTS apart patent by patent to determine whether NOK's claim is true. I think patent counting has itself been pretty much discredited, but the dismantling of NOK's arguments will require a thorough and analysis of its claims to essential IPR and a comparison of such claims to Q's essential IPR. The problem with the "essential" standard is that a lot of the essential IPR is politically based. I think this is where Q may hurt as the little I know about how Q plays the political game in the standard setting organizations suggests that it may not do so as well as others.