پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,228 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,747 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,076,199 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,811,210 |
نقش لیسانس فرند فناوری در تسهیل فرایند تعیین استانداردهای فنی | ||
| مجله علمی "حقوق خصوصی" | ||
| مقاله 10، دوره 15، شماره 2، مهر 1397، صفحه 373-394 اصل مقاله (466.64 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jolt.2019.255832.1006544 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| ابراهیم رهبری* 1؛ فاطمه یزدان‌دوست2 | ||
| 1استادیار گروه حقوق تجارت بین‌الملل و حقوق مالکیت فکری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2کارشناس ارشد حقوق مالکیت فکری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| سازمان‌های تعیین استاندارد در زمینة حقوق مالکانة اشخاص راهبردهایی مبتنی بر حقوق مالکیت فکری تدوین کرده‌اند که یکی از آن‌ها تعهد به اعطای لیسانس منصفانه و معقول و غیرتبعیض‌آمیز (فرند) است. این التزام در پیشبرد مزایای استانداردسازی ـ از جمله تعامل‌پذیری، توسعة نوآوری، ارتقای رقابت، و افزایش رفاه مصرف‌کنندگان ـ بسیار کارساز است. هدف نویسندگان مقالة حاضر این است که ضمن بررسی اهمیت استانداردهای فنی و نقش محوری سازمان‌های تعیین استاندارد در ایجاد و توسعة آن‌ها جایگاه لیسانس فرند را در تعیین و تجاری‌سازی فناوری‌های ضروری استاندارد تحلیل کنند. این نوشتار نشان می‌دهد چالش میان روند گزینش یک استاندارد و حقوق انحصاری ناشی از فناوری جدّی است و در این میان حصول توافق میان سازمان‌های تعیین استاندارد و دارندة فناوری برای اعطای مجوز بهره‌برداری خاص به کاربران استاندارد فنی اهمیتی حیاتی دارد. ابعاد چنین موضوعی در حقوق ایران ناشناخته است و مقررات ویژه‌ای در این زمینه وجود ندارد و تمهید لیسانس اجباری نیز قادر به برآورد انتظارات و مطالبات مختلف این عرصه نیست. اما، تعمق در راهکارها و واکاوی رویه‌های موجود حقوقی می‌‌تواند در پیوند میان فناوری‌های مزبور و فرایند تعیین استاندارد راهگشا باشد و بستر حقوقی لازم را برای توسعة استانداردهای فنی مرتبط با دارایی‌های فکری مهیا سازد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| استاندارد فنی؛ حق اختراع؛ حقوق مالکیت فکری؛ فناوری ضروری استاندارد؛ لیسانس فرند | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The Role of FRAND License in Facilitating Technical Standards-setting Process | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ebrahim Rahbari1؛ Fatemeh Yazdandust2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of International Trade & Intellectual Property Law Department, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2M. A in Intellectual Property Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Facing proprietary rights of individuals, standard-setting organizations have developed strategies based on intellectual property rights. One of the most important strategies is the commitment to grant Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licenses. This commitment plays an important role in advancing the benefits of standardization, including interoperability, development of innovation, promotion of competition and enhancement of consumer welfare. The present study is going to demonstrate the importance of technical standards and the role of standard setting organizations in their creation and development and analyze the key role of FRAND license in determination and commercialization of standard essential patents. This paper shows that there is serious challenge between the process of choosing a standard and the exclusive rights arising from a technology, therefore, it is crucial that standard setting organizations and technology holder reach an agreement to grant specific licenses to implementers of technical standards. The aspects of the subject are not known in Iranian law and there are no special provisions in this regard. The compulsory license is not an appropriate device to reply various expectations and demands in this field, but considering and analyzing of the existing approaches and legal procedures can be beneficial and constructive to link these patents up with the standard setting process and development of technical standards related to intellectual properties. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Technical Standard, Patent Rights, FRAND License, Essential Patent for Standard, Intellectual Property Rights | ||
| مراجع | ||
10. Contreras, J. (2013). ‘Fixing FRAND: a Pseudo-Pool Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing’, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 79, pp. 47-98. 11. Contreras, J. (2013). ‘technical standards and ex ante disclosure: results and analysis of an empirical study’, jurimetrics, vol. 53, pp. 163-212. 12. Contreras, J. (2015). ‘A brief history of FRAND: analyzing current debates in standard setting and antitrust through a historical lens’, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 80, pp. 39-120. 13. Cotter, T. (2014). ‘Comparative law and economics of standard-essential patents and FRAND royalties’,Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 311-364. 14. Cowie, M. & Lavelle, J. (2002). ‘Patents Covering Industry Standards: The Risks to Enforceability Due to Conduct Before Standard-Setting Organizations’, AIPLA Quarterly Journal, Vol. 30, pp. 95-160. 15. Craig, A. (2014). ‘How to Fix FRAND? An Analysis of Transnational Enforcement and Legal Legitimacy’, Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 18, pp. 580-634. 16. Curran, P. (2003). ‘Standard-Setting Organizations: Patents, Price Fixing, and Per Se Legality’, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 70, pp. 983-1010. 17. De Vellis, J. (2003). ‘Patenting Industry Standards: Balancing the Rights of Patent Holders with the Need for Industry-Wide Standards’,AIPLA Quarterly Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 301-352. 18. Devlin, A. (2009). ‘Standard-setting and the failure of price competition’, New York University Annual Survey of American Law, Vol. 65, pp. 217-268. 19. Dolmans, M. (2002). ‘Standards for standards’, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 163-208. 20. Geradian, D. (2009). ‘Pricing Abuses by Essential Patent Holders in a Standard-Setting Context: A view from Europe’, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 76, pp. 329-358. 21. Geradin, D. & Rato, M. (2007). ‘Can standard-setting lead to exploitative abuse? A dissonant view on patent hold-up, royalty stacking and the meaning of FRAND’, European Competition Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 101-162. 22. Gifford, D. (2003). ‘Developing Models for a Coherent Treatment of Standard-Setting Issues Under the Patent, Copyright, and Antitrust Laws’, IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 43, pp. 331-394. 23. Glader, M. (2010). ‘Open standards: public policy aspects and competition law requirements’, European Competition Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 611-648. 24. Hovenkamp, H. (2016). ‘Antitrust and Information Technologies’, Florida Law Review, Vol. 68, pp. 419-466. 25. Hurwitz, J. (2008). ‘The value of patents in industry standards: Avoiding license arbitrage with voluntary rules’, AIPLA Quarterly Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 1-42. 26. Jacobsen, K. (2009). ‘Intellectual Property in Standards: Does Antitrust Law Impose a Duty to Disclose (Even if the Standards-Setting Organization Does Not)’, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 459-486. 27. Jakobsen, K. (2004). ‘Revisiting standard-setting organizations patent policies’, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Vol. 3, pp. 43-60. 28. Kattan, J. (2012). ‘FRAND Wars and Section 2’, Antitrust, Vol. 27, pp. 30-35. 29. Keeler, R. (2013). ‘Why Can't We Be (F) rands: The Effect of Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Commitments on Standard-Essential Patent Li 30. censing’, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 317-346.Kesan, J. & Hayes, C. (2014). ‘FRAND's Forever: Standards, Patent Transfers, and Licensing Commitments’, Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 89, pp. 231-314. 31. Kochuk, M. (2014). ‘In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices: Apple, Samsung, Patent Holdup, and the Public Interest’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, Vol. 40, pp. 849-875. 32. Lemley, M. & Shapiro C. (2013). ‘A simple approach to setting reasonable royalties for standard-essential patents’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 1135-1166. 33. Lemley, M. (2002). ‘Intellectual property rights and standard-setting organizations’, California Law Review, Vol. 90, pp. 1889-1980. 34. Leonard, R. & Stiles, A. (2012). The Importance of Standard-Essential and Implementation Patents. NEW JERSEY LAWYER, pp. 35-39. 35. Leveque, F. & Meniere, Y. (2008). ‘Technology standards, patents and antitrust’, Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, Vol. 9, pp. 29-48. 36. Li, B. (2016). ‘The Global Convergence of FRAND Licensing Practices: Towards Interoperable Legal Standards’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 429-466. 37. Li, R. & wang, r. (2017). reforming and specifying intellectual property rights policies of standard-setting organizations: towards fair and efficient patent licensing and dispute resolution. university of illinois journal of law, technology & policy, vol. 2017, pp. 1-48. 38. Lim, D. (2014). ‘Standard essential patents, trolls and the smartphone wars: triangulating the end game’, Penn State Law Review, Vol. 119, pp. 1-92. 39. Maldonado, K. (2014). ‘Breaching RAND and reaching for reasonable: Microsoft v. Motorola and standard-essential patent litigation’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 419-464. 40. Michel, S. (2010). ‘Bargaining for RAND Royalties in the Shadow of Patent Remedies Law’, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 77, pp. 889-912. 41. Miller, B. (2014). ‘FRAND-Encumbered SEPs and Injunctions: Why Section 5 of the FTC Is an Inappropriate Remedy’, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, Vol. 16, pp. 452-493. 42. Miller, J. (2007). ‘Standard Setting, Patents, and a Access Lock-In: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm’, Indiana Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 351-396. 43. Newman, D. (2012). ‘Going Once... Going Twice... Licensed under the Most Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Bidding Terms’, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Vol. 11, pp. 139-161. 44. Nimmer, R. (1998). ‘Breaking Barriers: The Relation Between Contract and Intellectual Property Law’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 827-890. 45. Ragavan, S. et al (2016).‘Frand v. Compulsory Licensing: The Lesser of the Two Evils’, Duke Law & Technology Review, Vol. 14, pp. 83-120. 46. Ratliff, J. & Rubinfeld, D. (2013). ‘The Use and Threat of Injunctions in the RAND Context’, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 1-22. 47. Rubin, J. (2006). ‘Patents, Antitrust, and Rivalry in Standard-Setting’, Rutgers Law Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 509-538. 48. Schallop, M. (2000). ‘The IPR Paradox: Leveraging Intellectual Property Rights to Encourage Interoperability in the Network Computing Age’, AIPLA Quarterly Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 195-306. 49. Schneck, D. (1997). ‘Setting the standard: problems presented to patent holders participating in the creation of industry uniformity standards’, Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (Comm/Ent), Vol. 20, pp. 641-664. 50. Sidak, J. (2016). Apportionment, FRAND Royalites, and Comparable Licenses after Ericsson v. D-Link. University of Illinois Law Review. Vol. 2016, pp. 1809-1870. 51. Stadheim, T. (2009). ‘Rambus, N-Data, and the FTC: Creating Efficient Incentives in Patent Holders and Optimizing Consumer Welfare in Standards-Setting Organizations’, Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology, Vol. 19, pp. 483-518. 52. Swanson, D. & Baumol, W. (2005). ‘Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory (RAND) Royalties, Standard Selection, and Control of Market Power’, Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 73, pp. 1-58. 53. Takenaka, T. (2009). Patent Law and Theory, Edward Elgar Publishing. 54. United states Department of Justice & United states Federal Trade Commission (2007). Antitrust enforcement & intellectual property rights: promoting innovation & competition, DIANE Publishing. 55. Von Hipple, E. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: informal know-how trading. Research policy, 16.6, pp. 291-302. 56. Wright, J. (2014). ‘SSOs, FRAND, and antitrust: lessons from the economics of incomplete Contracts’, George Mason Law Review, Vol. 21, pp. 791-810. 57. Zhange, L. (2012). Standardization and Patent Licensing in the European Union. IPR University Centerin JulkaisujaThe Role of FRAND License in Facilitating Technical Standards-setting Process | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 831 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 322 |
||