1 Slides for Class #10 ASU Technology Standards Seminar April 5, 2010 Brad Biddle

2 IntroductionTaxonomy / “How”Business strategy / “Why”AntitrustIPR: RAND v. RFIPR(+): “Openness”IPR: Patent poolsPolicy: private stnds & lawPolicy: Role of government + China Student presentations * Guest discussion re USB 3/223/294/54/124/194/26

3 PATENTS COPYRIGHT ANTITRUST CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT ETHICS TRADE PROCUREMENT CONSUMER PROTECTION Royalty stacking Ambush Hold-up/hold-out F/RAND Pools Ex-ante Attorney-Client Privilege Board member duties WTO/TBT TAX Anti-commons ECPR CONTRACT PUBLIC POLICY Disclosure TRADEMARK

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Samuelson argument I

11

12

13 Samuelson argument II

14 Samuelson argument III (incentive and competition) 1.SSOs have ample incentives beyond the copyright incentive 2.Volunteers do the work currently 3.SSOs generally use copyright-related revenues to subsidize other activities 4.The web has made distribution of standards cheap and easy 5.Because the document is a standard, the SSO can get monopoly rents (i.e., there is no price competition) 6.Perverse incentives to “make public employees into a kind of free sales force” for the SSO

15

16

17

18 United States Standards Strategy (by ANSI)

19

20

21 Summary of SSO arguments Copyright incentive drives creativity by SSOs Respect property interest of copyright owner 5 th Circuit wrong re interpreting copyright law Copyright revenue is critical for business model of some SSOs –These SSOs are a critical part of the very successful US standards system –Government relies on the US standards system to produce high quality standards –A high quality standards system ultimately benefits government and citizens No practical harm under the current model: standards are available at reasonable rates

22 An under-explored argument: control over derivative works (i.e. the importance of one organization defining precisely what is the standard)

23

24

25

26

27