The European Commission’s DG GROWTH (formerly DG Enterprise) is running a public
consultation with the stated objective of gathering information
and views on the interplay between standardisation and intellectual property
rights such as patents. It was
opened on 14 October 2014 to 15 February 2015 and is about to close. The
initial deadline for comments of 31 January 2015 was extended by two weeks to
15 February.
Demands for change lack evidentiary support
Prior to this in 2013, DG GROWTH commissioned a fact-finding
study on the issue of patents and standards upon which it has centred this consultation. Research
presented in this is largely based on a small number of 37 interviews, many of
which are outside the industry sectors where interoperability standards are
most commonly used.
The Report’s findings are very subjective and speculative.
It makes the introductory statement that “[t]o 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." However,
quantitative data from desk research such as that on the extent of patenting
and disclosures neither measure any of the purported problems, such as
allegedly excessive transaction costs, nor measure the effects they have in the
marketplace, for example, on market entry costs or market shares. There is no
overall empirically-based assessment of information costs, transaction costs or
overall costs in licensing SEPs, or how these are actually trending in the
market.
Unintended and undesirable consequences
DG GROWTH should be cautious when discussing and proposing
changes to rules and practices, including disclosures and licensing for
patented technologies in interoperability standards. Changing the dynamics of
standardisation, participation in which remains voluntary, may impair
innovation and reduce contributions to standards setting. This is particularly
true if policy recommendations or changes undermine the evidently
well-functioning aspects of standardisation processes.
As I have explained in several of my IP Finance blogs
including my most recent on IEEE’s
proposed patent policy changes, which has now been approved by
the IEEE board of directors, alleged problems and harms in
standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing remain unsupported with evidence. Nor
have the impact of proposed “remedies” on R&D, investment or long-term
innovation been assessed in any meaningful way. The danger of proposing reforms
that do not address quantifiable harm is dire unintended consequences.
Standard-setting Organization (SSOs) participation is voluntary with rules and
procedures determined by members in accordance with the law. Imposing change
could have adverse effects such as discouraging members to invest in
R&D, contribute patented technologies to standards or outright
departure from SSOs with reversion to more proprietary implementations.
Facts and figures show market is working well
The system of licensing interoperability standards is
working remarkably well, as exemplified in mobile phones, to the benefit of
consumers with vibrant competition which has resulted in extensive innovation,
increasing product choice, falling prices and massive adoption with 7 billion
connections worldwide. It has attracted large and increasing R&D
expenditures which have grown 50 percent since 2008 to $42 billion in 2013.
Licensing fees paid for mobile
SEP royalties remain below 5 per cent ($19 billion) of Morgan Stanley’s
estimated $377 billion in 2013 handset sales. And these figures are dwarfed by
the $1.1 trillion in mobile operator service revenues which are also very
dependent on mobile 2G, 3G and 4G technologies.
Submission to DG GROWTH
I have just submitted my lengthy consultation response to DG
GROWTH. It is also available in pdf form here.
You have two more days to get yours in!
1 comment:
N&M Consultancy also filed some Responses to the Consultation. If any readers are interested, a copy of the Submissions are at http://www.licensingforstandards.co.uk/licensingforstandards.co.uk/uploads/ck_files/files/N&M%20Responses%20to%20Public%20Consultation%2013-2-15(1).pdf
Post a Comment