The court found no proof that it would hurt SDOs..
Brown et al. 23 – Intellectual Property Attorney and Corporate Partner at Seyfarth, J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley.
Arnold E. Brown, II, Kenneth Wilton, Intellectual Property Attorney at Seyfarth, J.D. from the University of California College of the Law, Joseph Myers, Director of Innovation for the Intellectual Property Practice Group at Seyfarth, J.D. from Vanderbilt University, “The District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ Recent Significant Legal Precedent Carries Implications for Standards Organizations,” Seyfarth, 12-19-2023, https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/the-district-of-columbia-court-of-appeals-recent-significant-legal-precedent-carries-implications-for-standards-organizations.html
Effect on Potential Market: The court found the evidence regarding the potential market harm to be equivocal. It noted that frequent updates by standards organizations and less frequent updates by lawmakers meant that the free copies provided by PRO might not be adequate substitutes for current standards. Additionally, no significant economic analysis was presented to demonstrate harm to the market. The court also recognized the substantial public benefits of free access to the law.