Document Type
Article
Publication Date
8-3-2014
Abstract
Standard essential patents have emerged as a major focus in both the public policy and academic arenas. The primary concern is that once a patented technology has been incorporated into a standard, the standard can effectively insulate it from competition from substitute technologies. To guard against the appropriation of quasi-rents that are the product of the standard setting process rather than the innovation itself, standard setting organizations (SSOs) require patentholders to disclose their relevant intellectual property before the standard has been adopted and to commit to license those rights on terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND).
To date courts and commentators have provided relatively little guidance as to the meaning of FRAND. The most common approach is to impose a uniform royalty based on a percentage over overall revenue. The baseline for setting this uniform royalty is the royalty that the patentholder could have charged had the standard had not been created. In essence, this approach takes the ex ante distribution of entitlements as given and attempts to ensure that the standard setting process does not increase patentholders’ bargaining power. However, comparisons to the ex ante baseline do not provide a basis for assessing whether the resulting outcome would maximize economic welfare.
Fortunately, public goods economics can provide an analytical framework for assessing whether a particular licensing structure is likely to maximize economic welfare. Although it is often observed that patentable inventions are public goods, key concepts of public good economics (such as the Samuelson condition that provides public good economics’ key optimality criterion) are rarely explored in any depth.
A close examination of public good economics reveals that it has important implications standard essential patents and FRAND. The resulting framework surpasses the current approach by providing a basis for assessing whether any particular outcome is likely to maximize welfare instead of simply taking the existing distribution of entitlements as given and allocating them in the most efficient way.
Keywords
fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND), Intellectual property, standard setting organizations, patent royalties, Samuelson condition, price discrimination, incentive incompatibility, mechanism design, Vickery auctions, Clarke-Groves-Ledyard, bundling
Repository Citation
Yoo, Christopher S., "Public Good Economics and Standard Essential Patents" (2014). All Faculty Scholarship. 1371.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1371
Included in
Contracts Commons, Economic Policy Commons, Economic Theory Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons, Other Economics Commons, Policy Design, Analysis, and Evaluation Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons, Science and Technology Policy Commons, Technology and Innovation Commons