It would create conflicting policies.
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
There are significant problems with this approach. First, as noted, it is inconsistent with the approach taken in the IPR policies of leading open standards organizations worldwide which expressly acknowledge the right of patent holders to charge reasonable royalties, and to place reasonable restrictions - such as field-of-use restrictions, 14 reciprocity requirements, 15 and restrictions on sublicensing16 - on the licensing of their essential technology covering an open standard. For example, the IPR policies and/or the model patent licensing declaration forms of ITU,17 W3C,18 IETF,19 and the WiFi Alliance,20 among many others, make clear that such terms are acceptable RAND provisions.