Amendments
2004—Subsec. (a)(7) to (10). Pub. L. 108–237, § 103(1), added pars. (7) to (10).
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 108–237, § 103(2), added subsec. (c).
1993—Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 103–42, § 3(b), struck out “research and development” after “joint” in introductory provisions, inserted subpars. (D) and (E), redesignated former subpars. (D) and (E) as (F) and (G), respectively, inserted “or production” after “research” in subpar. (F), substituted “(D), (E), and (F)” for “and (D)” in subpar. (G), and substituted “such venture” for “research” after “facilities for the conducting of” in concluding provisions.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–42, § 3(c)(1), struck out “research and development” before “venture” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 103–42, § 3(c)(2), substituted “if such information is not reasonably required to carry out” for “that is not reasonably required to conduct the research and development that is”.
Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103–42, § 3(c)(3), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “entering into any agreement or engaging in any other conduct restricting, requiring, or otherwise involving the production or marketing by any person who is a party to such venture of any product, process, or service, other than the production or marketing of proprietary information developed through such venture, such as patents and trade secrets, and”.
Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 103–42, § 3(c)(4), in subpar. (A) substituted “, developments, products, processes, or services not developed through, or produced by,” for “or developments not developed through”, in subpar. (B) substituted “any person who is a party to such venture” for “such party”, and at end of concluding provisions substituted comma for period.
Subsec. (b)(4) to (8). Pub. L. 103–42, § 3(c)(5), added pars. (4) to (8).
Findings and Purpose
Pub. L. 108–237, title I, § 102, June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 661, provided that:
“The Congress finds the following:
“(4)
Having the same
technical standards used by Federal agencies and by the private sector permits the Government to avoid the cost of developing duplicative Government standards and to more readily use products and components designed for the commercial marketplace, thereby enhancing quality and safety and reducing costs.
“(5) Technical standards are written by hundreds of nonprofit voluntary consensus standards bodies in a nonexclusionary fashion, using thousands of volunteers from the private and public sectors, and are developed under the standards development principles set out in Circular Number A–119, as revised February 18, 1998, of the Office of Management and Budget, including principles that require openness, balance, transparency, consensus, and due process. Such principles provide for—
“(B)
the opportunity to participate in standards development or modification,
“(C)
balancing interests so that standards development activities are not dominated by any single group of interested
persons,
“(D)
readily available access to essential information regarding proposed and final standards,
“(E)
the requirement that substantial agreement be reached on all material points after the consideration of all views and objections, and
“(F)
the right to express a position, to have it considered, and to appeal an adverse decision.
“(6)
There are tens of thousands of
voluntary consensus standards available for government use. Most of these standards are kept current through interim amendments and interpretations, issuance of addenda, and periodic reaffirmation, revision, or reissuance every 3 to 5 years.
“(7)
Standards developed by government entities generally are not subject to challenge under the
antitrust laws.
“(8)
Private developers of the
technical standards that are used as Government standards are often not similarly protected, leaving such developers vulnerable to being named as codefendants in lawsuits even though the likelihood of their being held liable is remote in most cases, and they generally have limited resources to defend themselves in such lawsuits.
Pub. L. 103–42, § 2, June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 117, provided that:
“(a) Findings.—The Congress finds that—
“(1)
technological innovation and its profitable commercialization are critical components of the ability of the United
States to raise the living standards of Americans and to compete in world markets;
“(2)
cooperative arrangements among nonaffiliated businesses in the private sector are often essential for successful technological innovation; and
“(3)
the
antitrust laws may have been mistakenly perceived to inhibit procompetitive cooperative innovation arrangements, and so clarification serves a useful purpose in helping to promote such arrangements.
“(b) Purpose.—
It is the purpose of this Act [see Short Title of 1993 Amendment note above] to promote innovation, facilitate trade, and strengthen the competitiveness of the United
States in world markets by clarifying the applicability of the rule of reason standard and establishing a procedure under which businesses may notify the
Department of Justice and
Federal Trade Commission of their cooperative ventures and thereby qualify for a single-damages limitation on civil antitrust liability.”