The Unintended Consequences of Standardization on Innovation

Standardization is often celebrated as the backbone of modern industry – it gives us USB ports that work across devices, telecom networks that connect billions, and safety norms that protect consumers. But there is a less discussed side to this story. When standards become deeply entrenched, they can quietly stifle the very innovation they were meant to support, raise walls against new market entrants, and concentrate power in the hands of dominant incumbents. For students and practitioners of intellectual property rights management in India, understanding these drawbacks is essential – not to dismiss standardization, but to engage with it more critically and strategically.

The paradox at the heart of standardization 🔗

Standards are designed to create order. By establishing common technical specifications, they reduce market fragmentation, lower production costs, and enable global interoperability. But this very success comes with a trade-off. Once a standard becomes widely adopted, the industry builds deep dependencies around it – infrastructure, supply chains, trained personnel, and business models all align to the standard’s requirements. At that point, the standard stops being just a technical guideline and starts functioning as a structural force in the market, shaping who can compete and on what terms.

This is the fundamental paradox: standardization simultaneously enables and constrains innovation. The same mechanism that brings products to market efficiently can also lock that market into a particular technological trajectory, even when better alternatives exist.

Technological lock-in and path dependency 🔗

One of the most significant drawbacks of standardization is the phenomenon economists call path dependency – the tendency for past decisions to constrain future options, even when superior alternatives are available. Once a standard becomes deeply entrenched, incumbent companies that have invested heavily in standardized infrastructure have a strong incentive to maintain the status quo, even if newer, better technologies exist.

A widely cited example is the QWERTY keyboard layout. Despite more efficient layouts having been developed decades ago, the original standard persists because the switching costs – retraining users, replacing hardware, updating software – are simply too high for individuals or organizations to justify. The same dynamic plays out in technology markets at a far larger scale.

In India’s telecommunications sector, this has been particularly visible. Early network protocol decisions, while enabling rapid deployment, also created rigidities that made transitioning to newer, potentially more efficient technologies economically unfeasible for many service providers. If a standard is rigidly enforced or technologically outdated, it can hinder experimentation and lock markets into suboptimal solutions – a risk that grows with each passing year as the standard ages but the ecosystem built around it resists change.

Stifling of innovation and reduced R&D incentives 🔗

When a technology standard is adopted across an industry, companies face intense pressure to develop products that conform to that standard. This is rational from a market access perspective, but it narrows the space for radical or disruptive innovation. Research and development efforts increasingly focus on improving within the standard rather than exploring what lies beyond it.

As research on the interaction between standardization and innovation highlights, intellectual property rights held by different owners can generate licensing costs that make implementing alternatives prohibitively expensive, pushing companies further toward incremental innovation within the established framework. The result is a market that optimizes for compatibility but under-invests in breakthrough thinking.

There is also a subtler effect: companies with patents incorporated into a standard gain a form of guaranteed revenue through licensing, which can reduce their urgency to continue innovating beyond what the standard requires. The tension between the development of technology and its diffusion is an inherent feature of standard development as an institution of innovation – and when that tension tips too far toward protecting existing IP, forward momentum slows.

Standard-essential patents and the problem of royalty stacking 🔗

When a technology becomes incorporated into a standard, the patents that cover those technologies acquire a special and powerful status – they become Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs). No one can build a standard-compliant product without licensing these patents, which gives SEP holders significant leverage.

The problem is that a single product – a smartphone, for instance – may need to comply with dozens of standards, each covered by SEPs held by different companies. When each SEP holder demands royalties independently, the cumulative licensing burden can become extraordinary. This is known as royalty stacking. Such practice leads to royalties being stacked or added one upon the other, leading to an exorbitant aggregate royalty, which may even exceed the total product price in extreme scenarios.

To address this, Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) typically require SEP holders to commit to licensing on FRAND terms – Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory terms. The principle behind FRAND is that while a patent holder deserves compensation, they should not be able to exploit the fact that their technology is now indispensable. However, what exactly constitutes a “fair and reasonable” rate remains contested and is frequently litigated.

The Indian experience: Micromax, Intex, and Ericsson 🔗

India has been a significant battleground for SEP-related disputes, and the country’s experience illustrates how these abstract problems translate into real market consequences. Micromax and Intex both appealed before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) regarding excessive royalty rates and unfair licensing terms proposed by Ericsson, which held SEPs for mobile technologies including 2G, 3G, and 4G. The companies alleged that Ericsson was tying royalties to the price of the entire phone rather than just the chipset that actually used the patented technology – a practice the CCI found to be prima facie discriminatory and contrary to FRAND terms.

The CCI’s observation in the Micromax case was pointed: hold-up can subvert the competitive process of choosing among technologies and undermine the integrity of standard-setting activities – and ultimately, the high costs of such patents get transferred to the final consumers.

This case exposed a structural vulnerability for Indian device manufacturers. India has the world’s second-largest telecommunications network and a highly price-sensitive consumer base. When SEP licensing costs are excessive or unpredictable, the financial burden flows downstream, making products more expensive for Indian consumers or squeezing the margins of Indian manufacturers who are already competing in tight markets. Despite numerous high-stakes SEP litigations and competition law interventions in India, the lack of a clear regulatory framework has caused uncertainty among stakeholders, making the problem even harder to resolve systematically.

Market entry barriers for new players 🔗

Beyond patents, standardization creates structural entry barriers that disproportionately affect startups and smaller companies. Compliance with established standards involves not just technical alignment but also certification costs, conformity testing, membership fees in standards bodies, and ongoing monitoring as standards evolve. These costs are relatively manageable for large corporations but can be prohibitive for smaller or newer entrants.

Consider an Indian startup developing innovative telecommunications equipment. Before it can bring a product to market, it must ensure compatibility with relevant standards, each potentially requiring licensing fees to multiple SEP holders. These financial requirements may render otherwise viable innovations economically unfeasible before the product even reaches consumers.

There is also a more strategic dimension. Standards frequently reinforce the position of dominant market players who influenced their development. Companies with significant representation on standards committees can shape technical specifications in directions favorable to their existing technologies and IP portfolios. This creates a competitive advantage that is difficult for challengers to overcome – not because the challenger’s technology is inferior, but because the market’s technical baseline has been deliberately or inadvertently aligned with incumbent offerings.

This dynamic has been observed in India’s software and technology sector, where large multinationals with substantial representation on international standards committees have historically steered specifications in ways that aligned with their existing product lines, leaving domestic firms to either comply at cost or miss market access altogether.

Standards as non-tariff trade barriers 🔗

Standardization also has a geopolitical dimension. Standards are frequently developed in industrialized nations, reflecting their technological priorities, resource availability, and industrial capacity. When these standards are adopted globally – or when compliance with them becomes a prerequisite for market access – they can function as de facto non-tariff barriers to trade.

For Indian exporters seeking access to global markets, navigating the complex landscape of international standards presents real challenges. India frequently fails to notify the WTO of new standards and often does not allow time for discussion with trading partners prior to implementation, which has created friction in both directions – Indian exporters face foreign standards as barriers, while India’s own standard-setting processes have been criticized internationally for limiting import access.

The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) mandates compliance with Indian standards for certain imported products, which serves a legitimate protective purpose for domestic industry. But when these standards diverge significantly from international norms – or when their application is inconsistent – they can simultaneously restrict beneficial competition and undermine Indian manufacturers’ ability to export. The introduction of restrictive technical barriers to trade can affect firm-level production and sales significantly, a two-edged sword for a country like India that is both a major importer and a growing exporter of manufactured goods.

The innovation-standardization tension in India’s digital future 🔗

As India accelerates its transition to a digital economy through initiatives like Digital India and its ambition for indigenous 5G and 6G development, the drawbacks of standardization take on heightened significance. The country must navigate a difficult balance: aligning with international standards to ensure global market access and interoperability, while simultaneously creating space for homegrown technologies that may not conform to specifications written largely by foreign technology giants.

The scope for conflict between standardization and innovation has increased over time, raising challenges for policymakers, patent offices, standards development organizations, and businesses. For India, uncritical adoption of external standards risks creating dependencies that limit indigenous innovation capabilities – particularly in sectors like telecommunications, semiconductors, and emerging technologies where standards decisions have long-term strategic consequences.

This means Indian policymakers, IP professionals, and businesses must engage actively in international standards-setting forums, advocate for FRAND reforms that protect implementers in price-sensitive markets, develop clearer domestic frameworks for SEP licensing, and invest in the capacity to develop and propose standards – rather than simply receiving them from abroad.

What do you think? Given that India is both a major implementer of international technology standards and an aspiring technology innovator, how should Indian companies and policymakers approach standards-setting bodies to better protect domestic interests? And when a standard locks in an older technology, at what point should the costs of switching outweigh the benefits of compatibility?

References

1. https://energy.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-drawbacks-of-standardization/
2. https://profwurzer.com/glossary/technology-standards/
3. https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/the_impact_of_standardization_and_standards_on_innovation.pdf
4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314437004_Standardization_and_Intellectual_Property_Rights
5. https://globalcompetitionreview.com/hub/sepfrand-hub/2025/article/india-seps-and-frand-litigation-policy-and-latest-developments
6. https://www.iiprd.com/indias-approach-to-seps-and-frand-licensing-ipr-and-antitrust-law-narratives/
7. https://globalcompetitionreview.com/hub/sepfrand-hub/2024/article/india-seps-and-frand-litigation-policy-and-latest-developments
8. https://or.niscpr.res.in/index.php/JIPR/article/view/19245
9. https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/india-standards-trade
10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022199620301276
11. https://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/journal_contribution/Standardization_innovation_and_IPR/23203814