Find out more about this
Gesmer Updegrove has represented more than 125 standards consortia and open source foundations, including:
View Full Client List
Useful Links

Communications Center Press Center Sitemap


Text Size:
Default  Large

RSS Feeds

Bookmark and Share

Standards <Meta>Library

Title: "Intellectual Property Rights, Strategic Technology Agreements And Market Structure. The Case Of GSM"
Authors: Rudi Bekkers Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies (ECIS), Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Geert Duysters Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies (ECIS), Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Bart Verspagen ECIS and MERIT, Maastricht University
Source: Internet
Publication Date: September 2000
Free/Fee: Free Access
Reads: 9774
Abstract: This paper investigates the role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in shaping the GSM industry. Thisindustry is an example of a high-tech industry in which standards play a large role. In the process ofdesigning the GSM standard, a lot of attention has been given to IPRs, mainly to avoid a situation inwhich a single IPR holder could hamper or even totally block the development of the standard.Nevertheless, the ultimate GSM standard contains a large amount of so-called 'essential IPRs', i.e., IPRswithout which the implementation of GSM products is impossible.The paper starts with a general discussion of the development of GSM, and the role of firm strategy andIPRs in this process. Next, we present a database on the essential IPRs in the GSM standard. This databasehas been compiled on the basis of international patent statistics, and the data that manufacturers havesupplied to ETSI, the European standardization body responsible for defining the GSM standard. We usethis database to assess the dynamic IPR position of firms in the original GSM standard and its subsequentdevelopment.In a next part of our analysis, we relate the firm's IPR position to the trends in strategic technologyagreements in the mobile telecommunications field. We ask the question whether firms that are powerfulin terms of IPRs are also the firms that are ‘central’ in the technology agreements network (or vice versa).We also investigate whether developments over time in the technology agreements data follow from thedynamic movements in the IPR position of a firm, and which other factors play a role in this.
Link: Full Text