理论与实践中的FRAND承诺:对Lemley和Shapiro“一个简单的方法”的回应

Law & Society: Private Law eJournal Pub Date : 2016-04-13 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2764615

Edward F. Sherry, D. Teece, P. Grindley

{"title":"理论与实践中的FRAND承诺:对Lemley和Shapiro“一个简单的方法”的回应","authors":"Edward F. Sherry, D. Teece, P. Grindley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2764615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We respond to a recent proposal by Profs. Lemley and Shapiro for compulsory binding final-offer (baseball-style) arbitration for disputes over licensing FRAND-commited standards-essential patents. We demonstrate that, contrary to their suggestions, their proposal is not \"best practices\" for any standards-setting organization and suffers from a number of practical and conceptual problems.","PeriodicalId":142986,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"FRAND Commitments in Theory and Practice: A Response to Lemley and Shapiro's 'A Simple Approach'\",\"authors\":\"Edward F. Sherry, D. Teece, P. Grindley\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2764615\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We respond to a recent proposal by Profs. Lemley and Shapiro for compulsory binding final-offer (baseball-style) arbitration for disputes over licensing FRAND-commited standards-essential patents. We demonstrate that, contrary to their suggestions, their proposal is not \\\"best practices\\\" for any standards-setting organization and suffers from a number of practical and conceptual problems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":142986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"106 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2764615\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2764615","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

我们对教授们最近提出的一项建议作出回应。lelemley和Shapiro律师，就有关授权rand承诺的标准必要专利的纠纷进行强制性约束性最终报价(棒球式)仲裁。我们证明，与他们的建议相反，他们的建议不是任何标准制定组织的“最佳实践”，并且存在许多实际和概念上的问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

FRAND Commitments in Theory and Practice: A Response to Lemley and Shapiro's 'A Simple Approach'

We respond to a recent proposal by Profs. Lemley and Shapiro for compulsory binding final-offer (baseball-style) arbitration for disputes over licensing FRAND-commited standards-essential patents. We demonstrate that, contrary to their suggestions, their proposal is not "best practices" for any standards-setting organization and suffers from a number of practical and conceptual problems.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Law & Society: Private Law eJournal

自引率

0.00%

发文量