It seems that even when Steve's suggestions are followed, commercial exingencies drive companies that participate in SDOs to do stupid things, at least with respect to the standards org intentions.
Samsung seems to have bithered through ETSI's well-defined IP, trying prosecute what should have been FRANDed patents ex-posfacto to the standards setting. Whether intentional or accidental, both Samsung and South Korean courts look like dunces when it comes to understanding what they signed up for.
While Samsung seems to have claimed ignorance to FRAND requirements, Motorola/Google makes a more malicious claim that standards-org-based legal agreements to offer FRANDs are unenforceable.
I would argue that even the most robust IP policy for standards seems not to mitigate the risk of litigation if the stakes get high enough.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.