Managing Intellectual Property Using Patent Pools: Lessons from Three Generations of Pools in the Optical Disc Industry

For modern technologies, access to intellectual property rights (IPR) is complex because it is fragmented among many owners. The required licensing agreements invoke considerable transaction costs and royalty stacking. Often, it is in the interest of the technology sponsor to ease access to the required IPR. Patent pools have proven useful to achieve this goal. This article examines the experiences with three generations of patent pools in the optical disc industry. Technology platforms are becoming increasingly complex, which leads to a fragmentation of IPR among many pools and causes new issues. A novel “pool-of-pools” can address these.

[1]  K. Blind,et al.  Emerging ways to address the reemerging conflict between patenting and technological standardization , 2012 .

[2]  Thomas R. Eisenmann.  Managing Proprietary and Shared Platforms , 2007 .

[3]  C. Hill,et al.  Establishing a standard: Competitive strategy and technological standards in winner-take-all industries , 1997 .

[4]  Dessy Choumelova.  Competition law analysis of patent licensing arrangements - the particular Case of 3G3P , 2003 .

[5]  Larry Joel Goldstein,et al.  Technology Patent Licensing: An International Reference on 21st Century Patent Licensing, Patent Pools and Patent Platforms , 2004 .

[6]  A. Gawer.  Platform Dynamics and Strategies: From Products to Services , 2009 .

[7]  Josh Lerner,et al.  Public Policy toward Patent Pools , 2007, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[8]  Georg Schreyögg,et al.  Organizational Path Dependence: Opening the Black Box , 2009 .

[9]  Xiudian Dai,et al.  Corporate Strategy, Public Policy and New Technologies: Philips and the European Consumer Electronics Industry , 1996 .

[10]  J. Tirole,et al.  The Rules of Standard Setting Organizations: An Empirical Analysis , 2005 .

[11]  Carl Shapiro,et al.  Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting , 2000, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[12]  Azam H. Aziz.  Defining Technology and Innovation Markets: The DOJ's Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property , 1995 .

[13]  Geerten van de Kaa,et al.  The Paradox of Standard Flexibility: The Effects of Co-evolution between Standard and Interorganizational Network , 2012 .

[14]  J. Lerner,et al.  To Join or Not to Join: Examining Patent Pool Participation and Rent Sharing Rules , 2011 .

[15]  Joachim Henkel,et al.  IP Modularity: Profiting from Innovation by Aligning Product Architecture with Intellectual Property , 2012 .

[16]  Jörg Sydow,et al.  Organizational Path Dependence: A Process View , 2011 .

[17]  F. Lévêque,et al.  Technology Standards, Patents and Antitrust , 2008 .

[18]  H. Varian,et al.  The Art of Standards Wars , 1999 .

[19]  J. West,et al.  Reconceptualizing and expanding the positive feedback network effects model: A case study , 2009 .

[20]  M. Sebastiani.  Competition and Regulation in the Network Industries , 2010 .