Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5




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.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



5 Embeds 53

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



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.

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

    Les2008final Les2008final Presentation Transcript

    • 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/
    • 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
    • <Insert Picture Here> “ Opting for open standards is a very wise business decision indeed.” Nelly Kroes DG COMPETITION
    • 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).
    • <Insert Picture Here> “ The Internet is fundamentally based on the existence of open, non-proprietary standards.” Vint Cerf Father of the Internet
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.