Brad Biddle | Arizona State University (original) (raw)

Papers by Brad Biddle

Research paper thumbnail of No Standard for Standards: Understanding the ICT Standards Development Ecosystem

The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law , 2017

There is no standard for standards. Technology standards are created, maintained and propagated i... more There is no standard for standards. Technology standards are created, maintained and propagated in a bewildering variety of ways, by a diverse set of actors. This Chapter attempts to explain this ironic and complex reality, and to provide a framework for understanding different standards development models in the information and communications technology (ICT) industry.

Research paper thumbnail of How Many Standards In a Laptop?(And Other Empirical Questions)

2010 Int’l Telecomm. Union Sec. Telecomm. Standardization Kaleidoscope Acad. Conf., 2010

An empirical study which identifies 251 technical interoperability standards implemented in a mod... more An empirical study which identifies 251 technical interoperability standards implemented in a modern laptop computer, and estimates that the total number of standards relevant to such a device is much higher. Of the identified standards, the authors find that 44% were developed by consortia, 36% by formal standards development organizations, and 20% by single companies. The intellectual property rights policies associated with 197 of the standards are assessed: 75% were developed under “RAND” terms, 22% under “royalty free” terms, and 3% utilize a patent pool. The authors make certain observations based on their findings, and identify promising areas for future research.

Talks by Brad Biddle

Research paper thumbnail of Beyond the Internet? - Innovations for future networks and services

An empirical study which identifies 251 technical interoperability standards implemented in a mod... more An empirical study which identifies 251 technical interoperability standards implemented in a modern laptop computer, and estimates that the total number of standards relevant to such a device is much higher. Of the identified standards, the authors find that 44% were developed by consortia, 36% by formal standards development organizations, and 20% by single companies. The intellectual property rights policies associated with 197 of the standards are assessed: 75% were developed under “RAND” terms, 22% under “royalty free” terms, and 3% utilize a patent pool. The authors make certain observations based on their findings, and identify promising areas for future research.

Drafts by Brad Biddle

Research paper thumbnail of Five Reasons Why Patent Disclosure in Standards-Setting Organizations Doesn't Work (And What To Do Instead)

Patent “hold up” is a risk associated with standard- setting, and requiring or encouraging disclo... more Patent “hold up” is a risk associated with standard- setting, and requiring or encouraging disclosure of relevant patents by standards developers is one tool used to mitigate this risk. Disclosure has an intuitive appeal and a strong theoretical justification as a method for addressing an informational asymmetry. This paper argues that disclosure simply does not work as a practical matter, however. The paper makes five key assertions: 1. Disclosure rules create an over-disclosure problem. Only a small percentage of patents declared as essential by patent owners are in fact essential for implementation of the standard — an unsurprising fact given the incentives of some parties to err on the side of disclosure. 2. Disclosure rules also result in an under-disclosure problem. For various reasons, certain key parties will have essential patent claims but will not disclose. 3. Disclosure rules suffer from a timing problem. Information is frequently available only after critical decisions have been made. 4. Disclosure rules create an action problem: that is, standards setting organizations are ill-equipped to use the disclosed information in a productive way. 5. Disclosure rules present a complexity and cost problem. Disclosure requirements are complex, ambiguous, and differ widely across SSOs. Participants in the standards development process must bear significant associated costs.

The paper concludes that disclosure is not an effective tool to address patent hold up, and suggests that other tools (such as enhanced “F/RAND” licensing obligations and improved patent valuation methodologies) should be used instead.

Research paper thumbnail of No Standard for Standards: Understanding the ICT Standards Development Ecosystem

The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law , 2017

There is no standard for standards. Technology standards are created, maintained and propagated i... more There is no standard for standards. Technology standards are created, maintained and propagated in a bewildering variety of ways, by a diverse set of actors. This Chapter attempts to explain this ironic and complex reality, and to provide a framework for understanding different standards development models in the information and communications technology (ICT) industry.

Research paper thumbnail of How Many Standards In a Laptop?(And Other Empirical Questions)

2010 Int’l Telecomm. Union Sec. Telecomm. Standardization Kaleidoscope Acad. Conf., 2010

An empirical study which identifies 251 technical interoperability standards implemented in a mod... more An empirical study which identifies 251 technical interoperability standards implemented in a modern laptop computer, and estimates that the total number of standards relevant to such a device is much higher. Of the identified standards, the authors find that 44% were developed by consortia, 36% by formal standards development organizations, and 20% by single companies. The intellectual property rights policies associated with 197 of the standards are assessed: 75% were developed under “RAND” terms, 22% under “royalty free” terms, and 3% utilize a patent pool. The authors make certain observations based on their findings, and identify promising areas for future research.

Research paper thumbnail of Beyond the Internet? - Innovations for future networks and services

An empirical study which identifies 251 technical interoperability standards implemented in a mod... more An empirical study which identifies 251 technical interoperability standards implemented in a modern laptop computer, and estimates that the total number of standards relevant to such a device is much higher. Of the identified standards, the authors find that 44% were developed by consortia, 36% by formal standards development organizations, and 20% by single companies. The intellectual property rights policies associated with 197 of the standards are assessed: 75% were developed under “RAND” terms, 22% under “royalty free” terms, and 3% utilize a patent pool. The authors make certain observations based on their findings, and identify promising areas for future research.

Research paper thumbnail of Five Reasons Why Patent Disclosure in Standards-Setting Organizations Doesn't Work (And What To Do Instead)

Patent “hold up” is a risk associated with standard- setting, and requiring or encouraging disclo... more Patent “hold up” is a risk associated with standard- setting, and requiring or encouraging disclosure of relevant patents by standards developers is one tool used to mitigate this risk. Disclosure has an intuitive appeal and a strong theoretical justification as a method for addressing an informational asymmetry. This paper argues that disclosure simply does not work as a practical matter, however. The paper makes five key assertions: 1. Disclosure rules create an over-disclosure problem. Only a small percentage of patents declared as essential by patent owners are in fact essential for implementation of the standard — an unsurprising fact given the incentives of some parties to err on the side of disclosure. 2. Disclosure rules also result in an under-disclosure problem. For various reasons, certain key parties will have essential patent claims but will not disclose. 3. Disclosure rules suffer from a timing problem. Information is frequently available only after critical decisions have been made. 4. Disclosure rules create an action problem: that is, standards setting organizations are ill-equipped to use the disclosed information in a productive way. 5. Disclosure rules present a complexity and cost problem. Disclosure requirements are complex, ambiguous, and differ widely across SSOs. Participants in the standards development process must bear significant associated costs.

The paper concludes that disclosure is not an effective tool to address patent hold up, and suggests that other tools (such as enhanced “F/RAND” licensing obligations and improved patent valuation methodologies) should be used instead.