Common and Uncommon Knowledge  ## Metadata - Author: [[Danielle Yates]] - Full Title: Common and Uncommon Knowledge - Category: #articles - Document Note: --- tags: - #standards - #patents - #opensource - #policy - #itlaw - #innovation - #rand - #frand - #antitrust - #internetstandards Author: Brian Kahin Source: Computer & Communications Industry Association / University of Michigan; “Common and Uncommon Knowledge” (PDF) Reference: http://ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/library/Kahin-on-StandardsPatents.pdf date created: 2025-08-27 00:00 --- # Title: Common and Uncommon Knowledge — Patents vs. Open IT Standards ## Table of Contents: - [📚 Overview & Thesis](#-overview--thesis) - [🌐 The Role of IT Standards](#-the-role-of-it-standards) - [🤝 Complementarity & Open Platforms](#-complementarity--open-platforms) - [⚖️ Patents’ Rising Power vs. Standards’ Vulnerability](#️-patents-rising-power-vs-standards-vulnerability) - [🧩 RAND, Ex Ante Licensing, and Their Limits](#-rand-ex-ante-licensing-and-their-limits) - [🏗️ Standards as Shared Intangible Assets](#️-standards-as-shared-intangible-assets) - [🧨 Ambush Risk, Trolls, and Systemic Bias](#-ambush-risk-trolls-and-systemic-bias) - [🧭 Aligning Patents and Open Standards (Reform Options)](#-aligning-patents-and-open-standards-reform-options) - [🔚 Conclusion](#-conclusion) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📖 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items (DevRel/OSPO alignment)](#-action-items-devrelospo-alignment) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical validity](#-logical-validity) - [🔍 DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🔎 SEO Evaluation](#-seo-evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion-1) ### References: - New York Times on MP3 litigation: “Patent Fights Are a Legacy of MP3’s tangled origins” - DOJ/FTC report: Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition (2007) - KSR v. Teleflex (U.S. Supreme Court) on obviousness - Rambus v. Infineon (Fed. Cir. 2003) - Kingsdown Medical Consultants v. Hollister (Fed. Cir. 1988) - IBM “Safe Harbor” paper (2005) - CPTech Proposed WIPO Protocol for Open Standards (PDOS) Note: This PDF lacks native timestamps; section anchors above function as internal “links” for navigation. ## 📝 Summary: Kahin argues that modern IT innovation depends on open standards, yet the U.S. patent system’s low thresholds, opacity, and legal asymmetries empower non-participating patent holders (“trolls”) to ambush widely adopted standards. RAND and even ex ante licensing cannot constrain outsiders. Because open standards catalyze massive, distributed investment, they merit protection akin to intellectual property. Kahin proposes reforms: elevate nonobviousness via peer-informed review and, more pragmatically, create a “safe harbor”/laches-style doctrine compelling timely patent disclosure for open standards or forfeiture of enforcement against mere implementation. The goal is to align patent incentives with the economic and social value generated by open standards. ## 📖 Main Content: - Overview: Standards are crucial platforms that create markets; patents have become easier to obtain and more potent, increasing inadvertent infringement and enabling ambushes. - Internet lesson: Open, nonproprietary protocols enabled explosive innovation (“no permission required”). - Complementarity: Open common platforms enable proprietary diversity; licensing constraints can freeze evolution even when initial terms are royalty-free but narrowly scoped. - Patent shift: The Federal Circuit broadened patentable subject matter and strengthened presumption of validity; quality and clarity suffered, increasing landmines for standards implementers. - Troll dynamics: Injunctive threats and sunk cost leverage make post-adoption assertion highly lucrative; even Supreme Court’s softening of automatic injunctions doesn’t remove leverage. - RAND and ex ante: Helpful inside processes but powerless against nonparticipants; standards groups lack capacity to police terms or ensure transparency. - Standards as assets: They are shared intangibles generating ecosystem-wide investment but are “asset-invisible” on firm balance sheets, leaving them politically weak versus patents. - Reform paths: - Hard: Raise nonobviousness with expert, peer-to-patent style review; reduce willful infringement penalties to encourage engineers to read patents. - Pragmatic: Safe harbor/laches—require timely disclosure by patentees for open standards or lose rights against good-faith implementers; applies to sufficiently open bodies (e.g., IETF, W3C). ### 🗒️ Notes - MP3 case as emblematic risk: A record damages award against a major implementer years after adoption illustrates latent exposure for standards-based products. - Market orientation of IT standards: - Often built via consortia vs. formal ISO/IEC/ITU pathways. - Emphasize speed, global scope, and practical interoperability. - Disclosure difficulties: - Costly clearance: Thousands of functions, many patents, plus unpublished applications. - Willful infringement penalties discourage patent reading; many IT patents later prove invalid due to undiscovered prior art. - Federal Circuit posture: - Narrow view of disclosure duty in standards settings (Rambus). - Tolerance for amending claims to read on competitors’ products (Kingsdown). - RAND’s shortcomings: - No public term transparency; bilateral deals impede collective challenge. - Ex ante licensing has pro-competitive justification per DOJ/FTC but still excludes nonparticipants. - Systemic bias: - Patent power incentivizes legal arbitrage over productive investment. - Cross-subsidy: Sectors like pharma thrive on strong patents; IT, reliant on open standards, bears costs. - Proposed safe harbor elements: - Applies to “open enough” standards (IETF, W3C as examples). - Constructive notice to patentees; failure to assert within a reasonable window waives enforcement against standard implementers. - Policy principle: Open/public IP (standards) deserves protective recognition equivalent to proprietary IP to sustain innovation ecosystems. ## 📖 References: - Heingartner, Douglas. “Patent Fights Are a Legacy of MP3’s tangled origins.” New York Times (2007). - U.S. DOJ & FTC. “Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition” (2007). - KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). - Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003). - Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988). - IBM. “Toward an Open Standards Based Innovation Economy” (2005). - CPTech. “Proposed WIPO Protocol for the Development of Open Standards (PDOS) v1.0.” ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: - Original idea: Open standards catalyze innovation by providing a free, common platform; but licensing caveats can freeze evolution. Paraphrase: The Internet flourished because foundational, nonproprietary protocols allowed anyone to build without asking permission. This shared base nurtured immense product diversity. Yet even ostensibly royalty-free licenses can restrict future changes when rights are limited strictly to the current text of the standard, potentially stifling its growth. - Original idea: RAND and ex ante licensing don’t bind outsiders; after widespread adoption, patents become lucrative tools of extraction. Paraphrase: While commitments like RAND and pre-selection licensing may streamline negotiations among participants, they offer no defense against patenteers who stay outside the process. Once products reliant on a standard saturate the market, a related patent’s “best use” becomes monetizing the sunk cost of others, transforming it into a powerful lever for post-hoc demands. ## 📰 Newsletter: This week in WebDev and Open Source: We’re doubling down on the scaffolding that makes the web work—open standards. Think HTTP, CSS, and the APIs you love; these shared protocols are the invisible co-author - URL: http://ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/library/Kahin-on-StandardsPatents.pdf Full text of this document omitted because this document is a PDF [Download original file →](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/56189365), Common and Uncommon Knowledge, Danielle Yates, 01h1kxbctcwrzf12m6yzzp79hx.