IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v40y2016i9p870-887.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The viability of FRAND: How the seminal landmark Microsoft ruling could impact the value of standard essential patents and the future of telecom standards

Author

Listed:
  • Heiden, Bowman

Abstract

Recently, telecommunication standards have become a battleground over the nature of F/RAND commitments that determine the value of standard essential patents. In 2015, the US federal court system reaffirmed the 2013 landmark ruling in Microsoft v. Motorola on the valuation of SEPs through the determination of a F/RAND royalty rate. This study deconstructed the courts valuation method and found that it deployed a comprehensive set of principles for apportionment of SEP value in line with the general economic theory of patent holdup and freeriding, but that the lack of technical strength of the SEP portfolios limited the full understanding of the generalization of the methodology to future contexts. Key implications include a greater capability of the US court system to manage F/RAND disputes, false reification of patent holdup as a systemic problem, and a potentially normative, negative impact on patent value, where the total impact on both static and dynamic efficiency requires further research and potentially new knowledge-based economic theories.

Suggested Citation

  • Heiden, Bowman, 2016. "The viability of FRAND: How the seminal landmark Microsoft ruling could impact the value of standard essential patents and the future of telecom standards," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 870-887.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:40:y:2016:i:9:p:870-887
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2016.03.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596116300209
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2016.03.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Josh Lerner & Marcin Strojwas & Jean Tirole, 2007. "The design of patent pools: the determinants of licensing rules," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(3), pages 610-625, September.
    2. Aoki, Reiko & Nagaoka, Sadao, 2004. "The Consortium Standard and Patent Pools," Economic Review, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 55(4), pages 345-357, October.
    3. J. Gregory Sidak, 2013. "The Meaning Of Frand, Part I: Royalties," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 931-1055.
    4. Anne Layne-Farrar & A. Jorge Padilla & Richard Schmalensee, 2007. "Pricing Patents for Licensing in Standard Setting Organizations: Making Sense of FRAND Commitments," Working Papers wp2007_0702, CEMFI.
    5. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Einer Elhauge, 2008. "Do Patent Holdup And Royalty Stacking Lead To Systematically Excessive Royalties?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 535-570.
    8. Vincenzo Denicolò & Damien Geradin & Anne Layne-Farrar & A. Jorge Padilla, 2008. "REVISITING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: INTERPRETING eBAY IN HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES WITH NON-PRACTICING PATENT HOLDERS," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 571-608.
    9. Farrell, Joseph & Klemperer, Paul, 2007. "Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1967-2072, Elsevier.
    10. van Damme, E.E.C., 2012. "Wereldwijde patentoorlog," Other publications TiSEM 3433841d-50ca-4dc1-9889-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    12. Lemley, Mark A & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Patent Hold-Up and Royalty Stacking," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt8638s257, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    13. Bekkers, Rudi & West, Joel, 0. "The limits to IPR standardization policies as evidenced by strategic patenting in UMTS," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 80-97, February.
    14. Layne-Farrar, Anne & Lerner, Josh, 2011. "To join or not to join: Examining patent pool participation and rent sharing rules," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 294-303, March.
    15. Roger G. Brooks, 2013. "Sso Rules, Standardization, And Sep Licensing: Economic Questions From The Trenches," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 859-878.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rossi, Maria Alessandra, 2022. "The advent of 5G and the non-discrimination principle," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2012. "Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 518-527.
    2. Miao, Chun-Hui, 2016. "Licensing a technology standard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 33-61.
    3. Spulber, Daniel F., 2016. "Patent licensing and bargaining with innovative complements and substitutes," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 693-713.
    4. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Ko, Chiu Yu & Zhang, Xuyao, 2023. "A conceptual model for FRAND royalty setting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 167-176.
    5. Chryssoula Pentheroudakis & Justus A. Baron, 2016. "Licensing Terms of Standard Essential Patents: A Comprehensive Analysis of Cases," JRC Research Reports JRC104068, Joint Research Centre.
    6. Baron, Justus, 2020. "Counting standard contributions to measure the value of patent portfolios - A tale of apples and oranges," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3).
    7. Mathias Dewatripont & Patrick Legros, 2013. "‘Essential’ Patents, FRAND Royalties and Technological Standards," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 913-937, December.
    8. Justus Baron & Tim Pohlmann, 2018. "Mapping standards to patents using declarations of standard‐essential patents," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 504-534, September.
    9. Lévêque, François & Ménière, Yann, 2011. "Patent pool formation: Timing matters," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 243-251.
    10. Layne-Farrar, Anne & Lerner, Josh, 2011. "To join or not to join: Examining patent pool participation and rent sharing rules," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 294-303, March.
    11. Klaus M. Schmidt, 2014. "Complementary Patents and Market Structure," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 68-88, March.
    12. Lévêque, François & Ménière, Yann, 2011. "Patent pool formation: Timing matters," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 243-251.
    13. Tesoriere, Antonio, 2019. "Stable sharing rules and participation in pools of essential patents," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 40-58.
    14. Dr Chiara Rosazza Bondibene, 2012. "A Study of Patent Thickets," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 401, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    15. Galetovic, Alexander & Haber, Stephen & Zaretzki, Lew, 2018. "An estimate of the average cumulative royalty yield in the world mobile phone industry: Theory, measurement and results," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 263-276.
    16. Jens Leth Hougaard & Chiu Yu Ko & Xuyao Zhang, 2017. "A Welfare Economic Interpretation of FRAND," IFRO Working Paper 2017/04, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Schmidt, Klaus M., 2010. "Standards, Innovation Incentives, and the Formation of Patent Pools," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 342, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    18. Dr Chiara Rosazza Bondibene, 2012. "A Study of Patent Thickets," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 401, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    19. Gallini, Nancy, 2014. "Cooperating with competitors: Patent pooling and choice of a new standard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 4-21.
    20. Lampert, Hodaya & Wettstein, David, 2020. "Patents and pools in pyramidal innovation structures," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:40:y:2016:i:9:p:870-887. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.