SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Advertisement


Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • This is certainly a good move, but perhaps this is... »
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Open Source, Standards Get A Boost In China

    Published on 24 April 2007 @ 12:42 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By William New
    BEIJING – Open-source software is receiving a rapid uptake in key developing countries and users, local industries and governments say it offers them market opening, flexibility and lower costs. China, perhaps the biggest potential market, showed last week how much open source is part of its plans.

    The adoption of open-source software is also related to rising interest in open standards, which stems from emerging economies’ effort to make global standards-making more favourable to them. Governments and technology companies say that a change in standards which involve underlying patents can mean monopoly markets for patent-holding companies, most of which are usually based in developed countries.

    A key issue is whether companies should be required to disclose early in the process of setting standards any related patents they have. China and others say sometimes the standard is established and then afterward it becomes clear that a company or companies own hidden patents and can gain by charging high prices for licenses.

    The issue was discussed at a 17-18 April event in Beijing, originally billed as part of a series called “The Standards Edge,” www.thebolingroup.com, cosponsored by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and several other agencies, as well as US technology company Sun Microsystems.

    The Chinese government appeared to take control of the event. The name of the conference was said by organisers to change overnight to “WTO: IPRs Issues in Standardization,” similar to the title of a 2005 paper China submitted at the WTO to push for changes to the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.

    There were very few question and answer opportunities during the event. Several senior Chinese government officials were unwilling to discuss policy with a foreign journalist, and a “press briefing” with Sun Microsystems Chairman Scott McNealy and Chinese officials was limited to local Chinese media, most of whom are considered to be affiliated with the government, sources said.

    Speaking at the event, Hu Caiyong, CEO of Beijing Redflag Chinese 2000 Software Technology, an open-source software company, said international standards have not been fair to China and should be ignored, at least for now. “There’s no level playground,” he said. Countries present in international organisations like the World Trade Organization are there “to profit their own interests.”

    “To establish an intellectual property protection system conforming to Chinese characteristics, protecting independent innovation: Avoid resorting to international usual practice blindly,” one of his slides read. He said Microsoft uses a less-precise western-based system.

    Hu’s company’s Linux-based open source software, RedOffice, has been adopted by more than 200 local governments in China. “We are now in a position to compete with Microsoft,” he said, adding that his company has received regular legal threats from foreign technology and telecommunications firms. But he said he has support from the Chinese government as open-source software is essential for China’s development of competing and independent tools.

    “Open source software is the gift to the whole of humankind from the open source community, and will be an opportunity for developing Chinese domestic software,” he said.

    Joining of Open Document Format and Chinese Format?

    Several speakers, including Hu, noted China’s development of its own open document format, referred to as UOF (Uniform Office Format), which could compete with Open Document Format, which has been recognised as a standard by the International Standardization Organization, and a competing format from Microsoft. Overtures were made by proponents of the ODF standard, including Sun Microsystems, to combine UOF with ODF. The UOF format was developed based on ODF, one source said.

    ODF is a standard of the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), a global consortium on “e-business and web service” standards, as well as the ISO.

    Goh Seow Hiong, director for software policy for Asia at the US-based Business Software Alliance, urged the audience to consider the risks of open-source software and open document standards and to support patents, attempting to cast doubt on arguments made before him. For instance, he said if it were decided to grant royalty-free standards, meaning patent-holders do not get paid for licensing of their patent that falls under a standard, “you would have kind of a little bit of a problem,” he said.

    Goh also downplayed the usefulness of interoperability, and argued against the notion that a high degree of usage of a technology can lock in a standard, hindering technological evolution. BSA’s membership includes companies favouring proprietary models, such as Microsoft. At least one representative from Microsoft, Wen Lanling from the Beijing office, was in attendance, but no company representatives made public comments at the event.

    In a reflection of the battle for China’s market, Microsoft also made a splash in Beijing during the week with events such as its Government Leaders Forum Asia, which creates a limited-access opportunity for “a thoughtful dialogue about policy, technology issues, etc.,” a company spokesperson said. Officials from Oracle also were on hand at the standards conference, and separately, Intel held its Developer Forum in Beijing during the week (http://www.intel.com/idf).

    On the first day of the Microsoft leaders forum, a joint innovation centre between Microsoft and Chinese computer maker Lenovo in Beijing was announced, and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was in China from Thursday to Saturday. Gates also addressed students at Tsinghua University where he will receive an honorary doctorate, and was to participate in China’s Imagination Festival, which has an educational focus, according to another spokesperson. During one public appearance, a person ran in front of the stage with a sign hailing open source software, according to a photograph in China Daily. The partnership between Microsoft and Lenovo has grown over the past year or so, giving Microsoft a boost to entry into the Chinese market, according to reports. But Lenovo also has contracted with Sun Microsystems to “run” the logistics systems for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, according to a Sun official.

    Patent Pools and Standards

    At back-to-back conferences, Zhan Ping, a Beijing University Law School professor, explained her dogged efforts to bring about improvements to patent pools, which she said are an arrangement in which two or more patent holders give licenses to each other or a third party and typically grant patents cooperatively. License fees are distributed to members based on their arrangement. She said patent pools help address increased decentralisation of patent rights which interferes with technology development, but problems can arise, for instance in the setting of license fees or anti-competitive activities. Undesired results can be inflated licensing prices and harm to the public domain, she said. Zhang described a lengthy case she and others brought against Philips electronics company that led to the invalidation of one its patents in China. She said the case could have an impact on other patent pools involving popular global technologies, in part by subjecting them to closer analysis under antitrust laws.

    The Chinese government is stepping up its intensive focus on international policymaking bodies, officials said. At the standards conference, an official from China’s information technology agency gave numerous statistics, such as that the agency increased its submissions to the International Telecommunication Union by 54 percent last year to 655, and that China now has 1.5 million patents, 30 percent of which are related to information and communications technology.

    International standards bodies were on the defensive as speakers from China suggested that the bodies, usually located in western countries, over-represent western developed countries. Representatives speaking in defence of western-based organisations came from the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, the BSI Group (an independent United Kingdom standards body), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), who also spoke on behalf of the International Standards Organization and the International Telecommunication Union.

    The latter, IEC Standardisation Strategy Manager Jack Sheldon, described the new patent rights policy jointly issued by the three organisations in recent weeks, which raises the stakes on patent disclosure. He said if the policy forces the technical body to reconsider standards if previously undisclosed patents come to light later.

    Sun Microsystems’ McNealy and other speakers said some standards are in the public interest and should not involve patents, such as language. He highlighted Sun’s open-source business model and took a shot at competitor Microsoft, saying Windows is a standard but is not open. “There’s almost no reason anymore to go proprietary,” he said, asserting that it hurts technology “migration paths” as “the barriers to exit [from use of proprietary technologies] are stunning.” He called on governments and standards bodies to address the problem.

    David Vivas Eugui, programme manager for intellectual property at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development in Geneva, discussed how development and the progression of IP is related. But he said developing countries are being pushed from the initial imitation stage to implementation to innovation more quickly than the developed countries went through in their IP system evolution some 100 years ago. He noted that new actors are influencing the policy process, and said the debate over patents and standards is “just the beginning … part of the reform and rebalancing of the IP system” that will inexorably take place.

    William New may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.