Les2008final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Les2008final

on

  • 1,992 views

I had the pleasure of addressing the Licensing Executives Society (LES) on 29 September 2008 at the NH Barbizon Palace Hotel in the center of Amsterdam. They were mostly lawyers, but I had fun anyway.

I had the pleasure of addressing the Licensing Executives Society (LES) on 29 September 2008 at the NH Barbizon Palace Hotel in the center of Amsterdam. They were mostly lawyers, but I had fun anyway.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,992
Views on SlideShare
1,939
Embed Views
53

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
15
Comments
0

5 Embeds 53

http://blogs.oracle.com 47
https://blogs.oracle.com 3
http://203.208.39.132 1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://www.javaoracleblog.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Les2008final Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Open Standards and Intellectual Property Rights Trond Arne Undheim, PhD Director Standards Strategy and Policy EMEA Licensing Executives Society, Amsterdam, 29.09.08 http://www.2008.les-benelux.org/
  • 2. The European Standards Policy Environment European Commission European Parliament Member States The Council
    • Benchmarking
    • Best practice
    • Legislative initiative
    • ITRE-committee
    • 27 Member States
    • EU27+
    • Influence in Asia and Latin-America
    • Decision making
    • Regulations
    • Directives
    • Decisions
    EU
  • 3. <Insert Picture Here> “ Opting for open standards is a very wise business decision indeed.” Nelly Kroes DG COMPETITION
  • 4. Why Open Standards are important
    • Enabling innovation (TCP/IP).
    • Boosting transparency (PDF).
    • Avoiding lock-in (ODF).
    • Creating market stability (HTTP).
    • Ensuring efficiency and economic growth (Internet).
  • 5. <Insert Picture Here> “ The Internet is fundamentally based on the existence of open, non-proprietary standards.” Vint Cerf Father of the Internet
  • 6. The Interoperability Imperative
    • Open standards facilitate and ensure interoperability.
    • Internet software standards
      • Created in new breed of global, informal standards venues.
      • Different from previous IT or hardware standards.
    • My software needs to talk to your software.
  • 7. Characteristics of Open Standards
    • The controversial EIF 1.0 (2004) definition:
    • “Adopted and maintained via an open process in which all interested parties can participate,
    • Published and available freely or at a nominal charge,
    • For which the intellectual property – i.e. patents covering (parts of) the standard – is made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis,
    • There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard”.
    • Source: European Interoperability Framework, European Commission IDABC Programme.
  • 8. Updates in the draft EIF 2.0 (2008)
    • Maintains a clear definition of Open Standards and specifications.
    • Enhances uniformity among National Interoperability Frameworks across EMEA and beyond.
    • Recognizes there is an “openness continuum”.
    • Handles life-cycle issues, i.e. emerging standards.
    • But: the governance model and tools to ensure compliance are still relatively weak.
  • 9. European Standardization
    • Legal base
      • Council Decision 87/95 (ICT standardisation in public sector).
      • Directive 98/34 (formally recognised standards organisations).
    • European standards organizations (ESOs)
      • CENELEC (1959) – Electro-technical standards.
      • CEN (1961) – European pre-standards and standards in ICT.
      • ETSI (1988) – Telecom standards.
  • 10. The Ideal Software Standards Ecosystem Global Royalty free Disclosed ex ante
    • Healthy process
    • Non-RF as the exception
    • Certainty
    • Late disclosure as the exception
    • Wide implementation
    • Actual interoperability
    Open
  • 11. Transparent Patent Licensing
    • Prevent IPR obstacles in software industry.
      • Prefer ex ante policy, so we can know the terms early.
      • If disclosure is not made, we favor default royalty free.
      • RAND is too vague, gives patent holders ex post leverage.
    • Less burdensome rules for standards participation.
      • Standards participants are not lawyers.
      • All users should have de facto access.
    • Ensure interoperability by open standards.
  • 12. Conditions On The Ground
    • Standards edging higher on government agendas
      • Interoperability Frameworks in many EU Member States.
        • Denmark and The Netherlands leading the way.
      • EU considers standards reform
        • Has 20 year old regulatory framework.
        • Cannot reference fora/consortia standards in legislation.
    • Some actors resist change
      • European Standards Organizations (CEN/CENELEC)
      • National Standards Organizations (DIN, AFNOR, BSI)
      • Still selling standards. Need a new business model.
  • 13. Conclusion
    • Open standards are market-led activities
      • Governments must reference fora/consortia standards.
      • We must all help to simplify the standards environment.
      • We must try to prevent IPR obstacles by transparency.
    • In software, ex ante disclosure is important. If not in place, default royalty free can ensure interoperability.
    • Open standards must be widely implemented – usage means efficiency, effectiveness – for all actors.
  • 14.  
  • 15.