1. 1 Slides for Class #7 ASU Technology Standards Seminar March 8, 2010 Brad Biddle

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

3. 3 Everyone loves “open standards”!

4. 4

5. 5 … but we can’t agree what they are

6. 6 ITU http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/othergroups/ipr-adhoc/openstandards.html

7. 7... ANSI http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/Critical%20Issues/Open%20Standards/CIP-OpenStandards.doc

8. 8 http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/21/05/T21050000050010MSWE.doc

9. 9 Tsilas http://www.ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_8-10-2005.pdf

10. 10 Krechmer http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.pdf

11. 11 http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=19529

12. 12 Perens http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html

13. 13 Rosen http://www.rosenlaw.com/DefiningOpenStandards.pdf

14. 14 Ghosh http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/openstandards-IGF.pdf

15. 15 DeNardis (“maximal openness” definition) http://www.ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_9-13-2009.pdf

16. 16 Maximal openness Closed: a specification developed by a single company with no avenue for participation by other parties. The spec is unavailable for other parties to use, even for a fee, to develop interoperable products based on the specification. The spec developer owns all the IPR and does not license it under any terms. DeNardis http://www.ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_9-13-2009.pdfhttp://www.ijclp.net/files/ijclp_web-doc_9-13-2009.pdf

17. 17

18. 18 ‘Conservative’ views: procedural due process, RAND IPR Open source-centric views: open participation, RF IPR ‘A2K-centric’ views: non- traditional innovation arguments, political and economic emphasis

19. 19 Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs) Formal, recognized standards development orgs (SDOs) Consortia (sometimes “SIGs”) “A collaboration of stakeholders with the common goal of the standardization of a specific technology or application” International “Big I” or “FISDOs”: ITU, ISO, IEC, JTC1 [“Little I”: e.g. ASTM, IEEE] Special Interest Groups (SIGs) “focus on a single standard for a specific technology or industry” “[usually] limited to development and possibly promotion” “generally short-lived” Alliances “develop multiple related standards for a technology” “may offer… logo and certification programs, marketing…” “life cycle may be relatively long” Regional e.g. ETSI, COPANT National Coordination bodies: e.g. CESI, ANSI Accredited SSOs: e.g. TIA, INCITS, NEMA, SAE -Based on taxonomy described in IPO Standards Primer (Sept. 2009)  Develop “Specifications”  Develop “Standards” GENERALLY RAND, PROCEDURALLY ‘OPEN’ MIXED RAND/RF; MIXED PROCEDURAL OPENNESS

20. 20 Maximal openness Closed Exercise: where do some of these familiar SIGs/SDOs fall on DeNardis’ scale?