This article analyses Open Intellectual Property (IP) platforms—where multiple stakeholders collaborate, package and transact upon technology in systems with ‘venture-market hybrid’ characteristics.
Activities on these platforms typically include collective gathering, creation and development of knowledge assets to which openness is regulated through the determined level of access, ownership and utilisation rights. We analyse how IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights) and contracts operate as a set of self-regulatory tools in the construction of platforms where technology is accessed openly but still is priced on what could be described as technology markets. A case study of the GSM (Global System for Mobile Communication) platform illustrates a transition over time as a new logic for collaborative, market-based development coalesces. To further understand the underlying building blocks and enabling legal tools that provide the foundation for open IP platforms a framework is suggested. By applying the framework to the Innovative Medicines Initiative platform the tools that govern openness and stimulate creation of new knowledge markets are made visible.
Barnes, Stuart, J. (2002), ‘The Mobile Commerce Value Chain: Analysis and Future Developments’, International Journal of Information Management, 22(2): 91–108.
2.
Bekkers, Rudi (2001), Mobile Telecommunications Standards: GSM, UMTS, TETRA, and ERMES. Boston: Artech House.
3.
Bekkers, Rudi and Joel West (2009), ‘The Limits to IPR Standardization Policies as Evidenced by Strategic Patenting in UMTS’, Telecommunications Policy, 33(1–2): 80–97.
4.
Bekkers, Rudi, Verspagen, Bart and Jan Smit (2002). ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Standardization: The Case of GSM’, Telecommunications Policy, 26(3–4): 171–88.
5.
Berger, Peter, L. and Thomas Luckmann (1966), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
6.
Bontis, Nick and Chun Wei Choo (2002), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge: A Collection of Readings. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Carroll, Ray and Richard Tansey (2000), ‘Intellectual Capital in the New Internet Economy—Its Meaning, Measurement and Management for Enhancing Quality’, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4): 305.
8.
Castells, Manuel (1996), The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. 1: The rise of the network society. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.
9.
Chesbrough, Henry (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
10.
Choo, Chun Wei and Nick Bontis (eds). (2002), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure, Computer Science and Telecommunication Board, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Applications,
12.
Correia, F.N. (2007), Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008—Setting up the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicine. [Online] Official Journal of the European Union. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri_OJ%3AL%3A2008%3A030%3ASOM%3AEN%3AHTML [Accessed 29 January 2010]
13.
Council of the European Union (2007), COUNCIL REGULATION setting up the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines. (Interinstitutional File: 2007/089 (CNS) 15977/07 RECH 412 COMPET 420) Brussels: Council of the European Union. Available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st15/st15977.en07.pdf
14.
Cowan, Robin and Elad Harison (2001), Intellectual Property Rights in a Knowledge-Based Economy. MERIT-Infonomics Research Memorandum Series 2001–27, s.l., s.n. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/dgr/umamer/2001026.html
15.
Dam, Kenneth (1994), ‘The Economic Underpinnings of Patent Law, 23’ Journal of Legal Studies, 247.
16.
David, Paul A. and W. Edward Steinmueller (2002), ‘Economics of Compatibility Standards and Competition in Telecommunication Networks’, Information Economics and Policy, 6(3–4): 217–41.
17.
Doig, Ian (2009), 3G and GSM Specification Handling. Available at: www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_08/tdocs/SA2/S2-99964.ppt [Accessed 10 March 2010].
18.
European Commission (2005), Responsible Partnering. Joining Forces in a World of Open Innovation. A Guide to Better Practices for Collaborative Research and Knowledge Transfer Between Science and Industry. p. 3. Available at http://www.interface.ulg.ac.be/docs/responsiblepartnering.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2010].
19.
European Parliament (2007), European Parliament Legislative Resolution of 11 December 2007 on the Proposal for a Council Regulation Setting up the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking. (COM(2007)0241—C6-0171/2007—2007/0089(CNS)) Strasbourg: European Parliament. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef_-//EP//TEXT_TA_P6-TA-2007-0590_0_DOC_XML_V0//EN
20.
Farrell, Joseph (1989), Standardization and Intellectual Property, 30Jurimetrics, J. 35.
21.
Foucault, Michel (1997), The Essential Works of Michel Foucault: 1954–84. Vol. 1., Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. London: Allen Lane.
22.
Garrard, Garry, A. (1997), ‘Cellular Communications: Worldwide Market Development’, Artech House Mobile Communications Series.
23.
Gillespie, I., M. Rosenmöller, R. Tijssen, C. Edquist and F. Sauer (2007), The Innovative Medicines Initiative: Assessment of Economical and Societal Effects. [Online] Unknown publisher. Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-ia-report-032007_en.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2010].
24.
Goodman, David, J. and Robert Myers (2005), 3G Cellular Standards and Patents. Proceedings of IEEE WirelessCom, 13 June 2005.
25.
Grant, Robert (1996), ‘Toward a Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 109–22.
26.
GSM Media LLC and Wireless Intelligence (2009), GSMA Mobile Infolink [Online]. Available at: http://www.gsmamobileinfolink.com/ [Accessed 19 October 2009].
27.
Holman, C.M. (2005), ‘Biotechnology’s Prescription for Patent Reform’, The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 5(318): 2006.
28.
Howard, Schulman (1999), The Hottest New Term in Biotech. [Online] s.l., s.n. Available at: http://www.ppdi.com/pdf/hottest_term_in_biotech.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2010].
29.
Hydén, Håkan (1989), Retssociologiens relevans vid behandlingen af formueretlige spørgsmå.
30.
Hydén, Håkan (2002), Normvetenskap. Lund Studies in Sociology of Law, Lund University Social Sciences.
31.
Imparato, Nicholas (ed.). (1999), Capital for Our Time: The Economic, Legal and Management Challenges of Intellectual Capital. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.
32.
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Call and Evaluation Process (2007a), IMI—Call and Evaluation Process. [Online] Innovative Medicines Initiative. Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-infoday-6-november-call-and-evaluation-process_en.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2010].
33.
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) IP Policy (2007b), IMI Intellectual Property Policy. [Online] Innovative Medicines Initiative. Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-ipr-policy01august2007_en.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2010].
34.
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) IP Policy 2009. Innovative Medicines Joint Undertaking (IMI JU) 2009 Call for proposals. [Online] Innovative Medicines Initiative. Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-ju-2009-call-topics-14092009_en.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2010].
35.
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Clarification Note, Unknown Publication Date, Clarification Note—IMI IP Policy. [Online] Innovative Medicines Initiative. Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/docs/clarification-note-imi-ip-policy.pdf [Accessed 19 January 2010].
36.
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Research Agenda (2008), The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Research Agenda – Creating Biomedical R&D Leadership for Europe to Benefit Patients and Society. [Online] Innovative Medicines Initiative. Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-gb-006v2-15022008-research-agenda_en.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2010].
37.
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Scientific Priorities (2008), IMI JU Scientific Priorities. [Online] Innovative Medicines Initiative. Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-scientific-priorities2008_en.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2010].
38.
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Scientific Priorities (draft) (2009), IMI JU Draft Scientific Priorities. [Online] Innovative Medicines Initiative. Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/docs/draft-imi-ju-scientific-priorities-2009_en.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2010].
39.
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) Joint Undertaking ( JU) Model Grant Agreement, unknown publication date. [Online] Innovative Medicines Initiative. Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-gb-055v2-30032009-grant-agreement.zip [Accessed 29 January 2010].
40.
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) website (2010), [Online] (last updated date unknown) Available at: http://www.imi.europa.eu/ [Accessed 29 January 2010].
41.
Iversen, Eric (1999), ‘Standardization and Intellectual Property Rights: ETSI’s Controversial Search for New IPR-procedures’, BJU International, 97(2): 247–54.
42.
Katz, Michael, L. and Carl Shapiro (1994), ‘Systems Competition and Network Effects’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2): 93–115.
Krogh, von Georg and Simon Grand (2002), From Economic Theory Toward a Knowledge Based Theory of the Firm—Conceptual Building Blocks.
45.
Lessig et al. (2001), On Creative Commons website [Online] (last updated date unknown). Available at: http://creativecommons.org/about/history [Accessed 11 March 2010].
46.
Lewin, Arie Y., Long, Chris P. and Caroll, N. Timothy (1999), ‘The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms’. Organization Science, 10(5): 535–50.
47.
Machlup, Fritz and Penrose (1950), Edith: The Patent Controversy.
48.
Merges, Robert (2008), IP Rights and Technological Platforms.
49.
Mowery, David C., Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat and Arvids Ziedonis (1999), The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. (Published in Revised Form in Research Policy, 30, 2001, pp. 99–119.)
50.
Mueller, Janice M. (2002), Patent Misuse through the Capture of Industry Standards, 17Berkeley Tech. L.J.623.
51.
Pallmeyer, R. (2003), Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99 C 626 United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois.
52.
Petrusson, U. (2001), Structural Transformation Towards License-Based R&D-Structures—A Structural Pressure to “Commodify” Knowledge and Establish Knowledge-Based Markets? European Commission, Fifth Framework Program, 36–39.
53.
Petrusson, U. (2007), Universitetet i kunskapsekonomin. S.l., VINNOVA. Available at: http://www.vinnova.se/upload/EPiStorePDF/vfi-07-01.pdf
54.
Petrusson, U. and M. Glavå (2008), ‘Law in a Global Knowledge Economy—Following the Path of Scandinavian Sociolegal Theory’, in P. Wahlgren (ed.), Law and Society. Scandinavian Studies in Law. Volume 53. Stockholm: Jure.
55.
Petrusson, U. and C. Pamp (2009), ‘Intellectual Property, Innovation and Openness’, in C. Arup and W. van Caenegam (eds), Intellectual Property Policy Reform Fostering Innovation and Development . ed. Arup C. and Caenegem van W., pp. 154–71, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
56.
Radin, Margaret Jane (2000), Humans, Computers, and Binding Commitment (2001). Stanford Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 09. Indiana Law Journal, 75: 1125–62.
57.
Schollin, K. (2008), Digital Rights Management. The New Copyright. Stockholm: Jure.
58.
Schulman, Howard (1999), The Hottest New Term in Biotech. [Online] s.l., s.n. Available at: http://www.ppdi.com/pdf/hottest_term_in_biotech.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2010].
59.
Shapiro, C. (2000), Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting. UC Berkeley: Competition Policy Center.[Online] Available at: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4hs5s9wk [Accessed 14 September 2010].
60.
Sherman, Brad (1995), ‘Governing Science—Patents and Public Sector Research in the United Kingdom’, IIC: International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law, 26(1): 24.
61.
Sherwood, R.M. (1993), Why a Uniform Intellectual Property System Makes Sense for the World. Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology. National Research Council. National Academy of Sciences. Washington.
62.
Shurmer, Mark and Lea, Gary (1995), ‘Telecommunications Standardization and Intellectual Property Rights: A Fundamental Dilemma?’, in Kahin & Abbate (eds), Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, 378.
63.
Simcoe, T.S., S.J.H. Graham and M.P. Feldman (2009), Competing on Standards? Entrepreneurship, Intellectual Property and Platform Technologies. Available at: http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/timothy.simcoe/papers/CompetingOnStandards.pdf [Accessed 10 March 2010].
64.
Soinen, Aura, H. (2005). Open Standards and The Problem with Sub-marine Patents, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Attorneys at Law Borenius & Kemppinen, Ltd. & Helsinki Institute for Information Technology.
65.
Spender, J.C. (1996), ‘Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter special issue): 45–62.
66.
Stefik, Mark (1999), The Internet Edge: Social, Legal, and Technological Challenges for a Networked World. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press.
67.
Tuckett, Roger (1993), ‘ETSI’s IPR Policy: The Implications for Companies Using European Telecoms Standards’, Patent World, 10(27): 23–27.
68.
Von Hippel, E. (1988), The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69.
Walsh, John, P., Ashish Arora and Wesley M. Cohen (2003), Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.
70.
West, Joel (2006), ‘Does Appropriability Enable or Retard Open Innovation?’, in Henry Chesbrough, Wim van Haverbeke and Joel West (eds), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, pp. 109–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
71.
West, Joel and Jason Dedrick (2001), Open Source Standardization: The Rise of Linux in the Network Era. Center for Research on Information Technologies and Organizations (CRITO) University of California: Irvine.
72.
White, Thomas and John Sninsky (1999), Genomics and Intellectual Capital.
