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).
Short Title of 2004 Amendment
Pub. L. 108–237, title I, § 101, June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 661, provided that:
“This title [amending this section and sections 4302
of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section] may be cited as the ‘Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2004’.”
Pub. L. 98–462, § 1, Oct. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1815, as amended by Pub. L. 103–42, § 3(a), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 117, provided that:
“This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993’.”
Findings and Purpose
Pub. L. 108–237, title I, § 102, June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 661, provided that:
“The Congress finds the following:
In 1993, the Congress amended and renamed the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 (now known as the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 4301
et seq.)) by enacting the National Cooperative Production Amendments of 1993 (Public Law 103–42
[see Short Title of 1993 Amendment note set out above]) to encourage the use of collaborative, procompetitive activity in the form of research and production joint ventures that provide adequate disclosure to the antitrust enforcement agencies about the nature and scope of the activity involved.
Subsequently, in 1995, the Congress in enacting the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) [Pub. L. 104–113
; see Short Title of 1996 Amendment note set out under section 3701 of this title
] recognized the importance of technical standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies to our national economy by requiring the use of such standards to the extent practicable by Federal agencies and by encouraging Federal agency representatives to participate in ongoing standards development activities. The Office of Management and Budget on February 18, 1998
, revised Circular A–119 to reflect these changes made in law.
Following enactment of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies have replaced thousands of unique Government standards and specifications allowing the national economy to operate in a more unified fashion.
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—
notice to all parties known to be affected by the particular standards development activity,
the opportunity to participate in standards development or modification,
balancing interests so that standards development activities are not dominated by any single group of interested persons,
readily available access to essential information regarding proposed and final standards,
the requirement that substantial agreement be reached on all material points after the consideration of all views and objections, and
the right to express a position, to have it considered, and to appeal an adverse decision.
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.
Standards developed by government entities generally are not subject to challenge under the antitrust laws.
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.
Standards development organizations do not stand to benefit from any antitrust violations that might occur in the voluntary consensus standards development process.
As was the case with respect to research and production joint ventures before the passage of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, if relief from the threat of liability under the antitrust laws is not granted to voluntary consensus standards bodies, both regarding the development of new standards and efforts to keep existing standards current, such bodies could be forced to cut back on standards development activities at great financial cost both to the Government and to the national economy.”
Pub. L. 103–42, § 2, June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 117, provided that:
“(a)Findings.—The Congress finds that—
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;
cooperative arrangements among nonaffiliated businesses in the private sector are often essential for successful technological innovation; and
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.
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.”