Anyone who has observed standard essential patents (SEPs) for any length of time knows quite well that behind all the legalese there is a heavy dose of politics – both foreign and domestic.

I have written extensively about the many negative effects of the 2015 IEEE patent policy and it was gratifying to see the US Department of Justice (DOJ) acknowledging these negative effects.

In high tech, famous OEMs have a long history of playing fast and loose with the antitrust laws while complaining about SEP owners’ alleged antitrust abuse

In the highly contentious world of SEP licensing, one of the biggest debates in recent years has been between advocates of compulsory “access to all” and the existing “license to all” Regimes.

I find it fascinating that lawyers and other lobbyists involved with SEPs get so worked up in their policy preferences that they start to have blinders that automatically insert their preferences into texts where those preferences are no where to be seen.

This week the Department of Justice issued a business review letter (BRL) relating to Avanci’s proposed 5G licensing platform for patents declared as potentially essential owned by its globally diverse thirty eight licensors.

It seems that Unified Patent’s year plus PR campaign (see) against HEVC assets in the US has run out of steam. Tags: Standard essential patents; FRAND; IPR;;

There is no doubt that the number of patents declared as potentially essential to technical standards is not an indication of essentiality; its only purpose is to make those declared patents accessible on FRAND terms should they ever become essential.

As I noted previously, over the past five years or so, the IEEE has been captured by the implementer lobby and its advocates.

If you follow statements of antitrust agencies the world over – even as far away as China and Korea