Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [PP-DIALOG] Definition of Reasonable Rates



1. Does the IEEE need to define reasonable rates, terms and conditions?



Defining reasonable rates, terms and conditions as set forth by Don is 
helpful to clarify the intent of IEEE members when they provide a patent 
declaration.  That said, the definition would take on greater meaning if 
adopted in conjunction with the other proposed changes to the IEEE patent 
policy.



Don's definition taken together with the other proposed changes to the IEEE 
patent policy would effectively promote the broad acceptance and adoption of 
IEEE standards by reducing opportunities for abusive patent holdup conduct 
after a standard has been adopted.



Adopting a definition of reasonable rates, terms and conditions is one step 
towards IEEE adopting a more transparent process that provides critical 
information and assurance to prospective adopters of IEEE standards. 
However, more is needed because the definition, standing alone, does not 
provide specific information about the license terms under which the 
patented technology will be offered to implementers of IEEE standards. This 
information is critical in developing or implementing an IEEE standard.



As we know from practice, patents and their license terms (including 
royalties and other non-financial terms) are frequently not known until 
after the standard is adopted and after a prospective licensee signs a 
confidentiality agreement.



It is difficult to ascertain whether rates, terms and conditions are 
reasonable and how they might impact the acceptability of IEEE standards 
when the rates, terms and conditions are not disclosed until after an 
implementer has invested substantial R&D, the market locks-in to the 
standard, and the rates, terms and conditions are provided only after an 
agreement of confidentiality is signed.



Don's proposed definition and the proposed policy changes that would 
facilitate early disclosures of actual license terms would advance standards 
practice by providing essential information about the costs and other 
burdens that are associated with licensing patented technology included in 
an IEEE standard.



Don's definition and information related to costs and other license terms 
related to patented technology could provide valuable guidance to the 
standards development working group in its consideration of whether to find 
another like-kind technical solution or to accept the standard burdened by 
the patent. Don's definition could also be used in patent litigation as 
evidence of how IEEE and its members define reasonable monetary and other 
patent license terms.



Therefore, Don's suggestion to define reasonable rates, terms and conditions 
is a positive step towards resolving the uncertainty that flows from 
undisclosed patents and their license terms.



1a. Is this definition defined in case law?



The definition of reasonable rates, terms and conditions takes into 
consideration case law and recent economic analysis (see examples set forth 
in Scott Peterson's response dated January 25, 2006).



1b. Should this be defined identically for all US SDOs?



Each SDO is created to provide technical standards for a particular field. 
As such, each SDO may require individual and unique rules to satisfy the SDO's 
industry needs. The standards field is not a one-size-fits-all field. 
Therefore, decisions are best left to the organization.



1c. Is letting each judge in each court in each case define it really a 
workable solution?



Courts in deciding cases look at many factors. Courts and juries are not 
predictable. Due to the nature of litigation, it begs SDOs to have policies 
that are unambiguous, clear and definite. Courts will look to the SDO 
policies to understand the behavior required of SDO members when deciding 
standards related litigation.  If we recall the Rambus case (Rambus v 
Infineon, 318 F.3d 1080), the Court faulted JEDEC for having vague and 
ambiguous rules. IEEE, through Don's definition and the other proposed 
policy changes, is simply trying to provide the clarity and certainty that 
the Federal Circuit in Rambus stated was lacking in the JEDEC rules.



2. If the IEEE does define it, what should the definition be?



The proposed definition of reasonable rates, terms and conditions is good. 
It supports issues under consideration by courts, the FTC, economists (see 
examples set forth in Scott Peterson's response dated January 25, 2006) and 
DG Competition.



- Catherine