It would deter SDOs from creating standards.
Tsilas 05 – Senior Attorney at Microsoft, J.D. from Georgetown University School of Law, M.S. in Engineering Management from the Stevens Institute of Technology.
Nicos Tsilas, “The Threat to Innovation, Interoperability, and Government Procurement Options From Recently Proposed Definitions of “Open Standards”,” International Journal of Communications Law & Policy, https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/ijclp/ijclp_10/ijclp_10h.pdf
Destroying the Balance
The IDA and like definitions would unravel the delicate balance that has been achieved by these RAND-based IPR policies. By mandating royalty-free licensing and unfettered sublicensing and by prohibiting other reasonable licensing terms, the proposed IDA approach would likely deter key patent holders from participating in and contributing to the standards development process. This, in turn, would deprive such standards of the best technical solutions and would allow the key patent holders (who would not be subject to the organization’s IPR policies) either to refuse to license their essential technology or to impose unreasonable terms and conditions on implementers of the standard. In short, attempts to ensure patent-free or royalty-free standards through an inflexible and anti-RAND definition of open standards could actually backfire and result in blocking patents or usurious licensing fees. In either case, the unfortunate result would be a breakdown of the innovation cycle, where important new standards and products might never see the light of day.