DOCSLIB.ORG

Patents and Standards

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patents and Standards Patents and Standards A modern framework for IPR-based standardization FINAL REPORT A study prepared for the European Commission Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry This study was carried out for the European Commission by and as part of the DISCLAIMER By the European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. ISBN 978-92-79-35991-0 DOI: 10.2769/90861 © European Union, 2014. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU. Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged. About ECSIP The European Competitiveness and Sustainable Industrial Policy Consortium, ECSIP Consortium for short, is the name chosen by the team of partners, subcontractors and individual experts that have agreed to work as one team for the purpose of the Framework Contract on ‘Industrial Competitiveness and Market Performance’. The Consortium is composed of Ecorys Netherlands (lead partner), Cambridge Econometrics, CASE, CSIL, Danish Technological Institute, Decision, Eindhoven University of Technology (ECIS), Euromonitor, Fratini Vergano, Frost & Sullivan, IDEA Consult, IFO Institute, MCI and wiiw, together with a group of 28 highly-skilled and specialised individuals. ECSIP Consortium p/a ECORYS Nederland BV Watermanweg 44 3067 GG Rotterdam P.O. Box 4175 3006 AD Rotterdam The Netherlands T. +31 (0)10 453 88 00 F. +31 (0)10 453 87 55 Email [email protected] 2 Patents and standards: A modern framework for IPR-based standardization Table of contents Preface 7 Executive Summary 9 1 Introduction 15 1.1 Context and objective of the Study 15 1.2 Theoretical frameworks applied in the Study 16 1.3 Benefits of smoother SEP licencing 18 1.4 Research methodology and value added of the study 20 1.5 Outline of the research 22 2 Innovation, IPR and standardization 25 2.1 The economics of information and innovation 25 2.1.1 Efficient market outcomes and market failures 25 2.1.2 Innovation and intellectual property rights 27 2.1.3 Innovation and collaboration 28 2.2 Standardisation: institutions and rules 31 2.2.1 Institutional context of standard setting organisations 31 2.2.2 The relation between the EU and SSOs 33 2.2.3 The relation between SSOs and patent holders 36 2.2.4 The relation between the EU and patent holders 48 2.2.5 Patent offices 49 2.3 Licensing: motives and practices 50 2.3.1 Licensing in the perspective of patenting motives and strategies 51 2.3.2 Licensing practices 52 2.3.3 Licensing in the case of Standard Essential Patents 53 2.3.4 Patent pools 54 3 Standardization and licensing in standard dependent industries 57 3.1 (Mobile) telecommunications 57 3.1.1 Industry definition and focus 58 3.1.2 Industry structure and developments 59 3.1.3 Market dynamics: firm entry and exit 62 3.1.4 The strategic role of standards and patents 64 3.1.5 Stylized industry characteristics 68 3.2 Consumer Electronics 69 3.2.1 Industry definition and focus 70 3.2.2 Industry structure and development 70 3.2.3 Market dynamics: large number of licensees and licensors 74 3.2.4 The strategic role of standards and patents 76 3.2.5 Stylized industry characteristics 79 3.3 Automotive 80 3.3.1 Industry definition and focus 80 3.3.2 Industry structure and developments 80 3.3.3 Market dynamics: entry and exit 83 3.3.4 The strategic role of standards and patents 85 Patents in standards: A modern framework for IPR-based standardization 3 3.3.5 Stylised industry characteristics 90 3.4 Smart Grids 92 3.4.1 Industry definition and focus 93 3.4.2 Industry structure and developments 93 3.4.3 Market dynamics: led by the large integrated suppliers 100 3.4.4 The strategic role of standards and patents 101 3.4.5 Stylized industry characteristics 104 3.5 Cross industry conclusions: trends impacting standardization and licensing 107 4 Barriers for efficient licensing of standard related patents 109 4.1 The main problems to be solved 110 4.1.1 Growing number of standard essential patents 110 4.1.2 Transaction costs and market failures 111 4.1.3 Time-to-market 113 4.2 Lack of transparency regarding SEPs 114 4.2.1 Uncertain definition of essentiality 114 4.2.2 Uncertainty about SEP ownership 117 4.2.3 Why is the lack of information a problem? 121 4.3 Problems related to specific business behaviour towards SEPs 122 4.3.1 What is the problem? 123 4.3.2 Problems leading to an increased risk of litigation 124 4.4 Conclusion 130 5 Improving the framework for IPR-based standardization 133 5.1 Overview of suggested solutions 135 5.2 Increasing the level of transparency 141 5.2.1 Defining update requirements & disclosure scope for SEP disclosures 141 5.2.2 Requiring precise information to substantiate essentiality 144 5.2.3 Routinely checks of essentiality 146 5.2.4 Entering licensing information in SSO database 151 5.2.5 Limiting the use of blanket disclosures 154 5.2.6 Adopt a stricter disclosure regime 160 5.2.7 Notification of transfer of SEP ownership by recordation 163 5.2.8 Increased collaboration between SSOs and patent offices 165 5.3 Promoting patent pools 169 5.4 Introducing dispute resolution mechanisms 177 5.5 Principles on FRAND definition/royalty principles 184 5.6 Transfer issues 189 5.7 Technology inclusion in the standardisation process 194 6 Other potential policy routes stemming from non-standard dependent industries 203 6.1 A brief introduction to a selection of non-standard dependent industries 203 6.1.1 Chemicals 203 6.1.2 Diagnostics 205 6.1.3 Mechanical engineering 208 6.1.4 Nanotechnologies 210 6.2 IP related problems in non-standard dependent industries 213 6.2.1 Large number of patents 213 6.2.2 Validity and scope 214 6.2.3 Royalty stacking 214 6.3 IP Solutions in non-standard dependent industries 214 Patents and standards: A modern framework for IPR-based standardization 4 6.3.1 Creating transparency via web crawling, wikis and crowdsourcing 215 6.3.2 Collaborative licensing programs 219 6.3.3 Clearinghouse 224 6.3.4 Applicability to standard dependent industries 227 Annex I Interview plans 229 Annex II Questionnaire on policy options 243 Annex III Data analysis: methodology and data used 253 Annex IV Determinants of blanket disclosures 267 Literature used 271 Patents in standards: A modern framework for IPR-based standardization 5 Preface This study was commissioned by the European Commission within the context of the Framework Contract for Industrial Competitiveness and Market Performance – ENTR/90/PP/2011/FC. The study was granted to the ECSIP consortium and its subcontractors and individual experts. Responsible for the management of the project and overall analysis are Professor Marcel Canoy, Nicolai van Gorp, Laura Birkman, and Patrick de Bas (Ecorys). The core-team further consists of Rudi Bekkers (Eindhoven University of Technology), Wolter Lemstra (TUDelft), Yann Ménière (MINES ParisTech), Rolf Zeldenrust, Bart Voogt, and Isabel Sainz (Ecorys Netherlands). Furthermore, the team responsible for the data analysis consisted, next to Rudi Bekkers and Yann Ménière, of Önder Nomaler (Eindhoven University of Technology), Justus Baron and Tim Pohlman (both associated with Mines ParisTech), and Arianna Martinelli (Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa). Quality control was provided by Professor Jan Smits (Eindhoven University of Technology) and Arnold Verbeek (Idea consult). We would like to thank the steering group from the European Commission for its constructive comments and excellent guidance and advice throughout the entire period of this study. We also thank all participants to the interviews and survey for their contributions. Special thanks go to Esther van Zimmeren (University of Antwerp) for providing insights in the measures used in other non-standard dependent industries. The opinions expressed in this Study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. Patents in standards: A modern framework for IPR-based standardization 7 Executive Summary Introductory remarks Context of the study Efficient licensing of intellectual property rights (IPR) is crucial for achieving broad and rapid diffusion of innovation. To ensure that Europe is well positioned in today’s global competitive environment, unnecessary barriers in the market for IPR licensing need thus to be removed. This requires a successful balancing of the incentives to invest in innovation against the benefits for the economy at large of a wide diffusion of knowledge. Of special interest in this context is the licensing of patents on technologies that are included in standards as an efficient licensing of these patents is key to the success of the standard. The licensing of such standard essential patents (SEPs) is however prone to market failures such as externalities (positive and negative), information problems, market power and free-riding. The various forms of market failure can result in barriers obstructing the efficient licensing of SEPs and can thus hinder the realization of the economic and societal benefits of the affected standards. Topic and objective of the study The principle objective of this study is to collect quantitative and qualitative data on IPR-based standardization, with a focus on identifying barriers for efficient licensing of SEPs and on possible solutions to these barriers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MS Hatch-Waxman PTE REQUEST for EXTENSION of PATENT
    Docket No.: 029420.0155-US02 (PATENT) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re United States Patent of: Alan J. Korman, et aL. Patent No.: 7,605,238 Issued: October 20, 2009 For: HUMAN CTLA-4 ANTIBODIES MS Hatch-Waxman PTE Commissioner for Patents Offce of Patent Legal Administration Room MDW 7D55 600 Dulany Street (Madison Building) Alexandria, VA 223 14 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PATENT TERM UNDER 35 U.S.C. §156 Sir: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §156 and 37 C.F.R. §§1.710-1.791, Medarex, Inc., the current address of which is Route 206 and Province Line Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 ("Applicant" or "Medarex"), hereby requests an extension of U.S. Patent No. 7,605,238 (the "'238 patent"). As permitted by 37 C.F.R. §1.785(b) and MPEP §2761, Applicant is concurrently fiing a request for patent term extension of U.S. Patent No. 6,984,720 based upon the same regulatory review period. Medarex represents that it is the owner and assignee of the entire interest in and to Letters Patent of the United States No. 7,605,238 (Exhibit 1) granted to Alan J. Korman, Edward L. Halk, Nils Lonberg, Yashwant M. Deo and Tibor P. Keler (the "inventors") on October 20, 2009, for "Human CTLA-4 Antibodies and Their Uses" by virtue of an assignment from the DC; 3983891.1 Patent No.: 7,605,238 - 2- Docket No.: 029420.0155-US02 Alan J. Korman, Edward L. Halk and Nils Lonberg to Medarex, recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Offce ("PTO") on March 6, 2003 at Reel 013817, Frame 0628 and an assignment from Yashwant M.
    [Show full text]
  • B2bi 2.5 Support Reference Catalog 3 Accessibility
    B2Bi Version 2.5 April 2019 Support Reference Catalog Copyright © 2019 Axway All rights reserved. This documentation describes the following Axway software: Axway B2Bi 2.5 No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any human or computer language, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical, chemical, manual, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner, Axway. This document, provided for informational purposes only, may be subject to significant modification. The descriptions and information in this document may not necessarily accurately represent or reflect the current or planned functions of this product. Axway may change this publication, the product described herein, or both. These changes will be incorporated in new versions of this document. Axway does not warrant that this document is error free. Axway recognizes the rights of the holders of all trademarks used in its publications. The documentation may provide hyperlinks to third-party web sites or access to third-party content. Links and access to these sites are provided for your convenience only. Axway does not control, endorse or guarantee content found in such sites. Axway is not responsible for any content, associated links, resources or services associated with a third-party site. Axway shall not be liable for any loss or damage of any sort associated with your use of third-party content. Contents Accessibility 4 Accessibility features of B2Bi 4 Keyboard
    [Show full text]
  • Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-84 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered ) MB Docket No. 11-154 Video Programming: Implementation of the ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: June 13, 2013 Released: June 14, 2013 Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) Reply Comment Date: (90 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) By the Commission: Commissioner Pai approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 2 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3 III. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION ..................................................................................................... 5 A. Petition for Reconsideration of the Consumer Electronics Association .......................................... 5 1. Scope of the Apparatus Closed Captioning Rules..................................................................... 5 2. Application of the Apparatus Rules to Removable Media Players ......................................... 16 3. Application of the January 1, 2014 Deadline Only
    [Show full text]
  • Owner's Manual
    OWNER’S MANUAL M197WD M227WD M237WD Make sure to read the Safety Precautions before using the product. Keep the User's Guide(CD) in an accessible place for furture reference. See the label attached on the product and give the information to your dealer when you ask for service. Trade Mark of the DVB Digital Video Broadcasting Project (1991 to 1996) ID Number(s): 5741 : M227WD 5742 : M197WD 5890 : M237WD PREPARATION FRONT PANEL CONTROLS I This is a simplified representation of the front panel. The image shown may be somewhat different from your set. INPUT INPUT Button MENU MENU Button OK OK Button VOLUME VOL Buttons PROGRAMME PR Buttons Power Button Headphone Button 1 PREPARATION <M197WD/M227WD> BACK PANEL INFORMATION I This is a simplified representation of the back panel. The image shown may be somewhat different from your set. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COMPONENT AV-IN 3 AUDIO IN IN (RGB/DVI) AV 1 AV 2 OPTICAL Y DIGITAL AV 1 AV 2 AUDIO OUT VIDEO AUDIO 1 B P VIDEO HDMI RGB IN (PC) (MONO) AC IN 2 PR L DVI-D ANTENNA L IN AC IN SERVICE R AUDIO ONLY RS-232C IN (CONTROL & SERVICE) R S-VIDEO 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 PCMCIA (Personal Computer Memory Card 7 Audio/Video Input International Association) Card Slot Connect audio/video output from an external device (This feature is not available in all countries.) to these jacks. 2 Power Cord Socket 8 SERVICE ONLY PORT This set operates on AC power. The voltage is indicat- ed on the Specifications page.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Sonyâ•Žs Fourth Playstation Lead to a Second Sony V. Universal?
    WILL SONY’S FOURTH PLAYSTATION LEAD TO A SECOND SONY V. UNIVERSAL? † SETH ASCHER ABSTRACT Sony has included a “share” button on the next version of their popular PlayStation video game system. This feature is meant to allow players to record and share videos of their gameplay. This service shares similarities with the controversial “record” button that Sony included with its Betamax players over thirty years ago. The Betamax player was the subject of the landmark case Sony v. Universal, a foundational case for the modern application of copyright law to new technology. This Issue Brief examines how this “share” feature would fare under the framework laid out by Sony v. Universal and other evolutions in copyright law. INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2013, Sony announced their newest videogame system, predictably named the PlayStation 4.1 Chief among its new features is the share button displayed prominently on its controller.2 Microsoft’s newest offering also has a similar feature.3 Pressing the share button will allow a player to post images or videos of their gameplay to the internet, sharing them with their friends and complete strangers.4 The PlayStation 4 even buffers the last few minutes of gameplay so that a player can share their gameplay video after the fact.5 Sony’s intention is to provide an easy way for players to share images and videos online. Copyright © 2014 by Seth Ascher. † Duke University School of Law, J.D. 2014. 1 Video of the press announcement is available on numerous websites. E.g., Sony PlayStation 4 Press Conference, GAMESPOT (Feb.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of the US Supreme Court's <I
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2006 Inducers and Authorisers: A Comparison of the US Supreme Court's Grokster Decision and the Australian Federal Court's KaZaa Ruling Jane C. Ginsburg Columbia Law School, [email protected] Sam Ricketson [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Jane C. Ginsburg & Sam Ricketson, Inducers and Authorisers: A Comparison of the US Supreme Court's Grokster Decision and the Australian Federal Court's KaZaa Ruling, MEDIA & ARTS LAW REVIEW, VOL. 11, P. 1, 2006; U OF MELBOURNE LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER NO. 144; COLUMBIA PUBLIC LAW RESEARCH PAPER NO. 06-105 (2006). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1401 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MELBOURNE LAW SCHOOL Legal Studies Research Paper Studies Paper No. 144 And COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series Paper No. 06-105 Inducers and Authorisers: A Comparison of the US Supreme Court’s Grokster Decision and the Australian Federal Court’s KaZaa Ruling PROFESSOR JANE GINSBURG COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL -And- PROFESSOR SAM RICKETSON UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Library at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=888928.
    [Show full text]
  • Fracking Patents: the Mee Rgence of Patents As Information-Containment Tools in Shale Drilling Daniel R
    Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review Volume 19 | Issue 2 2013 Fracking Patents: The meE rgence of Patents as Information-Containment Tools in Shale Drilling Daniel R. Cahoy Pennsylvania State University Joel Gehman University of Alberta Zhen Lei Pennsylvania State University Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel R. Cahoy, Joel Gehman & Zhen Lei, Fracking Patents: The Emergence of Patents as Information-Containment Tools in Shale Drilling, 19 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 279 (2013). Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol19/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FRACKING PATENTS: THE EMERGENCE OF PATENTS AS INFORMATION-CONTAINMENT TOOLS IN SHALE DRILLING Daniel R. Cahoy* Joel Gehman** Zhen Lei*** Cite as: Daniel R. Cahoy, Joel Gehman & Zhen Lei, Fracking Patents: The Emergence of Patents as Information-Containment Tools in Shale Drilling, 19 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REv 279 (2013), available at http://www.mttlr.org/volnineteen/cahoy.pdf The advantages of new sources of energy must be weighed against en- vironmental, health, and safety concerns related to new production technology. The rapid development of unconventional oil and gas fields, such as the Barnett and Marcellus Shales, provide an excellent context for these contrasting goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Latent Dangers in a Patent Pool: the European Commission's Approval of the 3G Wireless Technology Licensing Agreements
    Latent Dangers in a Patent Pool: The European Commission's Approval of the 3G Wireless Technology Licensing Agreements Michael R. Franzingert TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................1695 I. B ackground .....................................................................................1698 A. The Evolution of Standards in the Wireless Communications Indu stry .....................................................................................1698 1. The 2G Mobile Telephone Standards .................................1698 2. The 3G Mobile Communication Standards ........................1699 B. Europe's Past Efforts at Standardization ..................................1700 C. Licensing of Essential Patents for 3G Standards ......................1702 II. The European Commission's Competition Law .............................1708 A. Article 81: The Foundation of European Antitrust Doctrine ...1709 B. New Block Exemptions, Individual Exemptions, and "C om fort L etters". ....................................................................1710 1. The Technology Transfer Block Exemption ......................1711 2. Exceptions Developed in Individual Cases ........................1712 III. A nalysis ...........................................................................................17 14 A. The Japanese Fair Trade Commission's Early Clearance of the Platform ..........................................................................1714 Copyright © 2003
    [Show full text]
  • THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M
    THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M. Rice† Billionaire entrepreneur Naveen Jain wrote that “[s]uccess doesn’t necessarily come from breakthrough innovation but from flawless execution. A great strategy alone won’t win a game or a battle; the win comes from basic blocking and tackling.”1 Companies with innovative ideas must execute patent strategies effectively to navigate the current patent landscape. But in order to develop a defensive strategy, practitioners must appreciate the development of the defensive patent playbook. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”2 Congress attempts to promote technological progress by granting patent rights to inventors. Under the utilitarian theory of patent law, patent rights create economic incentives for inventors by providing exclusivity in exchange for public disclosure of technology.3 The exclusive right to make, use, import, and sell a technology incentivizes innovation by enabling inventors to recoup the costs of development and secure profits in the market.4 Despite the conventional theory, in the 1980s and early 1990s, numerous technology companies viewed patents as unnecessary and chose not to file for patents.5 In 1990, Microsoft had seven utility patents.6 Cisco © 2015 James M. Rice. † J.D. Candidate, 2016, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. 1. Naveen Jain, 10 Secrets of Becoming a Successful Entrepreneur, INC. (Aug. 13, 2012), http://www.inc.com/naveen-jain/10-secrets-of-becoming-a-successful- entrepreneur.html.
    [Show full text]
  • PAEW-0059 Korea Semiconductor Industry Association
    Comments of the Korea Semiconductor Industry Association On Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) Activities April 5, 2013 The Korea Semiconductor Industry Association (KSIA) welcomes the opportunity to submit these comments to the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, regarding the activities of Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs). The KSIA hopes that these comments are helpful to the agencies’ analysis of this important issue and respectfully requests that these comments be taken into account as policies are developed to address these serious concerns. The KSIA is an industry association, based in Seoul, Korea, which represents more than 300 companies in the semiconductor manufacturing sector, involved in all aspects of semiconductor device manufacturing as well as semiconductor equipment, materials, and design. Many of its member companies are world leaders in developing advanced semiconductor technologies. The KSIA's primary objectives include promotion of its members’ products and the further advancement of technological development in Korea's semiconductor industry. The KSIA is dedicated to providing opportunities for promoting cooperation among its members and members of international organizations in the areas of device, equipment and material suppliers. The world’s semiconductor industry, of which KSIA members are an important part, plays a vital role in the technological advancement and increased efficiency of nearly every facet of society. In addition to the well-known advances in computers,
    [Show full text]
  • The File Cmfonts.Fdd for Use with Latex2ε
    The file cmfonts.fdd for use with LATEX 2".∗ Frank Mittelbach Rainer Sch¨opf 2019/12/16 This file is maintained byA theLTEX Project team. Bug reports can be opened (category latex) at https://latex-project.org/bugs.html. 1 Introduction This file contains the external font information needed to load the Computer Modern fonts designed by Don Knuth and distributed with TEX. From this file all .fd files (font definition files) for the Computer Modern fonts, both with old encoding (OT1) and Cork encoding (T1) are generated. The Cork encoded fonts are known under the name ec fonts. 2 Customization If you plan to install the AMS font package or if you have it already installed, please note that within this package there are additional sizes of the Computer Modern symbol and math italic fonts. With the release of LATEX 2", these AMS `extracm' fonts have been included in the LATEX font set. Therefore, the math .fd files produced here assume the presence of these AMS extensions. For text fonts in T1 encoding, the directive new selects the new (version 1.2) DC fonts. For the text fonts in OT1 and U encoding, the optional docstrip directive ori selects a conservatively generated set of font definition files, which means that only the basic font sizes coming with an old LATEX 2.09 installation are included into the \DeclareFontShape commands. However, on many installations, people have added missing sizes by scaling up or down available Metafont sources. For example, the Computer Modern Roman italic font cmti is only available in the sizes 7, 8, 9, and 10pt.
    [Show full text]
  • Do the Anticompetitive Risks of Standards-Essential Patent Pools Outweigh Their Procompetitive Benefits?*
    Glory Days: Do the Anticompetitive Risks of Standards-Essential Patent Pools Outweigh Their Procompetitive Benefits?* JOHN “JAY” JURATA, JR. & EMILY N. LUKEN1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………...…………2 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 3 A. Patent Pools & Similar Arrangements...................................... 3 B. SEPs, FRAND, and Competition Law ....................................... 4 III. PATENT POOLS AND COMPETITION LAW ....................................... 6 A. Overview……………………………………………………………...6 B. Historical DOJ Business Review Letters on Patent Pools….….8 C. DOJ Avanci 5G Business Review Letter…………………………10 IV. SOME OF THE PROCOMPETITIVE ASSUMPTIONS FOR PATENT POOLS ARE NO LONGER ARE TRUE WHEN APPLIED TO FRAND- ENCUMBERED SEPS ..................................................................... 13 A. Market Power ......................................................................... 13 B. Reduced Transaction Costs ..................................................... 16 V. ANTICOMPETITIVE RISKS OF CERTAIN SEP POOLS ARE HIGHER TODAY COMPARED TO THE POOLS REVIEWED BY THE DOJ IN HISTORICAL BUSINESS REVIEW LETTERS .................................... 18 A. Licensing Agents Refusing to Comply with FRAND ............... 19 B. Structural Mechanisms Designed to Deter Adhering to FRAND Commitments ............................................................. 21 C. Including Non-SEPs to Collect Supra-FRAND Royalties ....... 25 D. Using Pools to Exploit
    [Show full text]