Anything less would be disappointing to say the least.Īpple obviously has an interest in devaluing SEPs and doubting the value of the 5G SEP portfolios of companies with which it has not yet agreed on license terms, just like CRA has an obvious interest in serving the world's richest corporation, even if it means going against consumer interests such as in a recent French antitrust case, where CRA not only disclosed but even boasted with its work for Apple.Īlso, it's not generally a bad idea to call into question the reliability (as evidence) of certain patent ownership studies. Credibility has (at least) two aspects in this context:ĬRA must now correct the disclosure on its Novempaper on 5G standard-essential patent (SEP) ownership- A critical review of 5G SEP studies-to make it perfectly clear that it was overwhelmingly (if not entirely) funded by Apple or remove the document from its website. But an organization like that needs to maintain a certain minimum standard to preserve its credibility. Policy makers, regulatory authorities, and judges are smart enough to know that the C in CRA doesn't mean "charitable." Journalists will understand that, too. I've agreed and disagreed with what I've seen from them on issues I'm interested in, and I've found them to be on the right (procompetitive) and at times on the wrong (anticompetitive) side of history-but never would I have doubted that they are good at what they do. They can't always be right, nor can they always be wrong. In order to maximize their profits and keep 800+ consultants from 50+ countries busy, they have to work for a diversity of clients and on a multitude of issues. According to CRA's website, the organization's clients include 78% of the Fortune 100. Charles River Associates (CRA) is a high-profile all-things-to-all-people economic research firm.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |