ITU-T Forum Summit 2003

1. ITU-T Forum Summit 2003

2. IPR and StandardizationIMTC Viewpoint Dr. Istvan Sebestyen IMTC President

3. Outline • Anything wrong with the current IPR policies of SDOs? • IMTC’s IPR-related activities: • Setting IPR requirements • Promotion of licensing • IMTC’s IPR relevant “Historical Archive” • Conclusions 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

4. Standardization Faces a Crisis • Many modern standards face a very complex IPR “environment” • Many claimants, unclear situations • Licensing difficulties delay market deployment (4 years+) • Major approved standards have problems • Many are questioning survival of the standardization process 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

5. Market Acceptance is Becoming a Real Problem • Standards are not working anymore • Too many claimed IPR holders (sometimes 50) • Lots of valid IPR, hard to determine owners • Often too expensive • Unrealistic licensing schemes • Impossible to get all licenses (too many IP holders) • Total cost is unpredictable • IPR “raiders” (weak or invalid claims) try to exploit the chaos • Consequence: Market movement toward proprietary solutions 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

6. Increasing Dangerous Trend • Many in industry are questioning if standardization is still practical • A perception of breakdown in the process • Examples • ISO/IEC MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4 • ITU-T G.723.1, G.729 speech codecs • ITU-T H.261, H.263 video codecs • ITU-T T.81 | ISO/IEC 10914 “JPEG-1” • ITU-T H.264 | MPEG4-10 (JVT) – hopefully not… 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

7. Something wrong with theSDO IPR Policies? • Fundamental assumptions of the “classical” IPR policies are shaking • Including: • “One size fits all” policy works for all standards • All SDOs must have similar/same policies • Technical and IPR work must be separated • Licensing strictly outside the scope of SDO • Voluntary “gentleman” like behaviour of actors assumed, no “Standards Police” needed 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

8. Traditional SDO Policies Inadequate • Traditional IPR policy doesn’t work for very complex IPR situations • One policy doesn’t fit all standards • Different SDOs can have different policies • Technical and IPR work may be merged • May have to check IP claims, react technically • Licensing can be within scope of SDO • Sometimes necessary in complex IPR situations 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

9. Implementation and Recordkeeping • Voluntary implementation inadequate • SDO Secretariat may need to take actions • Recordkeeping, Archiving Improvements • Must keep ALL records for future research • Not just a subset • Must keep permanently to prove prior art • Good indexes, searchable text will help 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

10. What is the solution? • Improve SDO IPR policies • Meet market requirements for standardization • Deregulation, “open source” mean changes • Users have many choices – SDOs must compete • If standards fail, participation will disappear • Only SDOs with successful IP policies will survive • Necessary, but a difficult challenge! • Affected fora can assist in some areas 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

11. What IMTC is Doing • At the start of standardization • Formulate and communicate IPR requirements to SDOs • At the end of standardization • Initiate and sponsor the start of licensing activities, if needed • Collect & store relevant IPR records • “Historical information” on multimedia standards to assistsolution of IPR disputes 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

12. Formulation of IPR Requirements • Best example: ITU-T H.264 | MPEG-4 Part10 • IMTC formulated and liaised requirements to ITU-T and ISO/IEC MPEG • RF “Baseline” – for fast market breakthrough in real-time communication • RAND “Options“ – e.g. for Digital TV • Concept was accepted both by ITU and ISO/IEC • Problem: SDOs do not have appropriate policy “tools” and practice to ensure “RF Baseline” implementation (“keep your finger crossed”) 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

13. Formulation of IPR Requirements (2) • IMTC takes member input case-by-case • IMTC may “steer” particular standards to the SDO whose IPR policy fits best • IMTC may suggest a de-facto standard • IMTC may define own standard • As a last resort only 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

14. Kick-off of Licensing • Promote the start of licensing activities • Allow fast implementation and market penetration of the standard • Best example ITU-T H.264: • IMTC/M4IF/ISMA jointly sponsored a June 2003 meeting (Los Angeles) • Formulate the licensing requirements as seen by the users. • Next step: Licensors getting together… 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

15. „Historic Archive“ Goals • Central source for prior art and relevantrecords for IMTC members • Discourage filing of invalid patents • Clarify situation for standards committees • Support defense against invalid patents • Promote adoption of new technology • Promote growth of IMTC member markets 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

16. Don’t Standards Bodies already do this? • Standards Orgs. often don’t keep records • Their records are not kept forever • Some documents are not archived at all • (ITU-T Rapporteurs meeting docs, TDs, Delayed docs) • Many older records on paper only • Especially prior to 1995 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

17. Conclusions • Traditional IPR policies not working • Very complex IPR environments • Market rejecting delays, complexity • SDOs, standardization at risk • Improved policies needed ASAP • Fora such as IMTC can help the situation • Advice, choice of SDOs • Historical archive projects 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

18. Thank you! Questions? 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

19. Background slides on the IMTC‘s „Historical Archive“

20. “Historical” Standards Archive • Historical information relevant to multimedia technology & standards • Contents include: • ITU-T H.3xx Systems • MPEG Systems • H.26x; G.72x; T.xx (media codecs) • Other relevant standards • Already running with partial database 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

21. Electronic Access (members only) • All archives will be in electronic form • Older paper documents will be scanned • Available via Web/FTP • CDs, DVDs if possible 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

22. Data Sources • Existing databases • IMTC member records • Standards Org. records • References to existing information 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA

23. What will be Stored? • All meeting contributions • All meeting reports • Lists of participants • Records of IPR licensing declarations • Copies of available pre-existing records • Copies of Standards Org. patent databases • Journal articles, brochures, conference procs. • References to books, expired patents, etc. 2nd ITU-T-Forum Summit Meeting – July 2003 – San Francisco, CA, USA