IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v9y2013i4p931-1055..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Meaning Of Frand, Part I: Royalties

Author

Listed:
  • J. Gregory Sidak

Abstract

What does it mean for a patent holder to commit to a standard-setting organization (SSO) to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms? When is a royalty FRAND? Drawing from both legal theory and economic theory, I propose an interpretation of FRAND that distinguishes and reconciles the conflicting definitions of FRAND and provides courts a practical approach to identifying FRAND royalties. A proper understanding of a FRAND royalty requires recognizing the combinatorial value of standard-essential patents. That recognition reveals the fallacy in attempting to apply the “ex ante incremental value” rule to the determination of a FRAND royalty. FRAND royalties divide the aggregate royalties generated by the standard among the holders of patents essential to the standard. Such a division should maximize the surplus resulting from the standard's creation. It must also satisfy an individual-rationality constraint for the patent holder and the licensee, thereby encouraging continued participation in the setting and implementation of open standards, as opposed to greater reliance on proprietary standards.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:9:y:2013:i:4:p:931-1055.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nht040
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jong-Hee Hahn & Chan KIm, 2018. "Input price discrimination with differentiated final products," Working papers 2018rwp-118, Yonsei University, Yonsei Economics Research Institute.
    2. Wipusanawan, Chayanin, 2020. "Standard-Essential Patents and Incentives for Innovation," Discussion Paper 2020-025, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    3. Wipusanawan, Chayanin, 2020. "Standard-Essential Patents and Incentives for Innovation," Other publications TiSEM 9ea6a894-ac05-413d-8c2d-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Jacob Seifert, 2015. "Welfare effects of compulsory licensing," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 317-350, December.
    5. Wipusanawan, Chayanin, 2020. "Standard-Essential Patents and Incentives for Innovation," Discussion Paper 2020-034, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Justus Baron & Jorge Contreras & Martin Husovec & Pierre Larouche, 2019. "Making the Rules: The Governance of Standard Development Organizations and their Policies on Intellectual Property Rights," JRC Research Reports JRC115004, Joint Research Centre.
    7. 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.
    8. Gamarra, Yanis & Friedl, Gunther, 2022. "Firms' Involvement in Standardization and Average Total Costs per Patent Family," 31st European Regional ITS Conference, Gothenburg 2022: Reining in Digital Platforms? Challenging monopolies, promoting competition and developing regulatory regimes 265630, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Gamarra, Yanis Luca & Friedl, Gunther, 2023. "Declared essential patents and average total R&D expenditures per patent family," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7).
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. Wipusanawan, Chayanin, 2020. "Standard-Essential Patents and Incentives for Innovation," Other publications TiSEM 5bbcc50b-2497-43a4-bba6-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    16. Spulber, Daniel F., 2016. "Patent licensing and bargaining with innovative complements and substitutes," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 693-713.
    17. Jonas Fabian Ehrnsperger & Frank Tietze, 2019. "Patent pledges, open IP, or patent pools? Developing taxonomies in the thicket of terminologies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, August.
    18. Bonani, Michela, 2023. "Essays on innovation, cooperation, and competition under standardization," Other publications TiSEM 1c87d7fc-2c24-430a-9d4e-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. 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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • K12 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Contract Law
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:jcomle:v:9:y:2013:i:4:p:931-1055.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    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.