Policy Content. It is the intent and purpose of INCOSE to use participation of members and non-members to develop products and to publish technical data that relate to all facets of systems engineering as prescribed in policy TEC-101. It is the intent of INCOSE to retain Intellectual Property rights granted to it by the owner to such products and technical information in the form of nonexclusive, unencumbered licenses that grant INCOSE the right to use such Intellectual Property in perpetuity and that reserve to the owner all Intellectual Property rights, such as copyright. Participants in product development and authors of technical information as prescribed in policy TEC-101 shall be responsible for determining the ownership and the availability of intellectual property for licensing to INCOSE. Participants shall ensure that any and all documents deemed necessary or appropriate by INCOSE are executed to license Intellectual Property owned by the participant, the participant’s employer, or another party by prior agreement with the participant. It is the responsibility of the President to personally, or through delegation, review and execute or approve for execution, on behalf of INCOSE, all proposed agreements or arrangements involving the licensing, sale, exchange, or other transfer of rights in Intellectual Property; and ensure that such delegate will be a primary participant, when deemed appropriate, in any negotiation or discussions relating thereto. Any license agreement shall be consistent with the principles established in Policy TEC-101. INCOSE chapters and CAB members shall receive preferential terms over unaffiliated organizations. INCOSE shall consider the economic value of the IP to the licensee, including consideration of whether the licensee acquires revenue from the IP or the derivative product that includes the IP. In those cases where INCOSE seeks financial compensation for the use of the Intellectual Property, the agreement shall seek to minimize the recordkeeping and other administration overhead. Possible mechanisms include: • A one-time permanent fee • An annual fee • A percentage of revenue derived from INCOSE’s Intellectual Property • A fee per copy sold, perhaps using a sliding scale. Pricing of a license for Intellectual Property based on an INCOSE product should consider the price established for that product. The pricing guidance table contained in LST-103 provides guidelines for establishing a negotiating position depending on the nature of th...
Policy Content. Table 8.2 summarizes the main impacts of Europeanization on environ- mental policy content in the ten countries. The single most obvious point is that the EU has affected some aspect of policy content in all 10 states, even the most environmentally progressive or ‘leader’ states such as Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. At a very general level it is pos- sible to identify instances where the EU has Europeanized all three levels of policy content as well as the overarching policy paradigms of national action. In terms of policy paradigms, the EU has undeniably promoted a more preventative, source-based approach to policy making, which fitted neatly with common practice in countries such as the Netherlands and Germany, but clashed with (and required changes to be made to) every- day practice in, for example, Ireland and the UK. A raft of water and air pollution Directives dating back to the 1970s have also helped to bring about a fundamental shift in the goals of national policy. Countries such as the UK, Finland, France and Greece have had to adapt their domestic arrangements, which contained relatively few explicit emission standards or focused on attaining pre-determined levels of environmental quality through the setting of environmental quality objectives (EQOs). However, the environmental acquis also contains some EQOs and environmental quality standards (e.g. the Directives relating to bathing water, freshwater fish and shellfish, as well as to air quality, and the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land), which have disrupted arrangements in coun- tries such as Germany and Sweden which had traditionally relied upon emission limits. The EU has also introduced entirely new policy instruments in some countries (e.g. air quality standards for SO2 and smoke, lead and NO2 in many Member States including the Netherlands and the UK; ‘emission bubbles’ and restrictions on the total production of certain chemicals such as CFCs). It has also altered the manner in which existing tools are Table 8.2 Policy content in c.2000 as compared to 1970 Goals Dominant instrument(s) Calibration of instruments: additional EU effect Austria Still source-based Still mostly regulation, but various NEPIs/ procedural instruments Little overall change Finland Increasingly source-based Still mostly regulation, but some NEPIs Tighter standards France Increasingly source-based Still mostly regulation, but various NEPIs Tighter standards Germany Still mainly source-based ...
Policy Content. It is widely accepted that European directives have a direct impact on the content of member state policies and often lead to the adaptation of national regulation. According to the EU Treaty (Article 249), directives set common goals, while member states are free to choose the means for attaining those goals. In practice, however, these ‘goals’ may be quite broadly defined and also involve the choice of policy instruments (legal obligations, financial instruments, plans and programmes, etc.) or specific standards. A rapidly increasing body of literature shows that the implementation of European policies does not always proceed smoothly (Jordan 1999a). Early work on Europeanization (see Chapter 1) tried to explain the EU’s failure to get its policies implemented by making reference to the considerable ‘misfits’ that in some cases exist between European requirements and pre-existing national policies (x.x. Xxxxxxx 2000; Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2000), i.e. the larger the misfit, the less likely implementation is to run smoothly. However, as we explained in the previous chapter, EU policies are very rarely an entirely extraneous imposition: particularly pro-active member states often compete to shape the overriding ‘model’ of new European legislation (cf. Héritier 1996). Member states that are most successful in this ‘regulatory competition’ will effectively limit the extent to which their domestic policies are Europeanized. Instead, they seek to ‘domesticate’ European policy to make it compatible with what they are already doing. The same country does not necessarily always triumph in this competition, however. In the environmental field, Germany with its law-based, standard-oriented approach dominated in the 1980s, while the more discretionary, quality approach of the British gained influence in the 1990s (Héritier et al. 1996). As a result, Héritier (1996) argues, European policy has the character of a ‘patchwork’ of national traditions and solutions, not leaving any member state entirely untouched by Europeanization. However, countries with less advanced policies at the time EU regulation is initiated will be less able to take part in the process of regulatory competition in Brussels. They may be expected to end up as ‘policy takers’ (see Chapter 1) more often than highly regulated (i.e. in environmental policy usually ‘northern’) member states. Apart from that, it is conceivable that some countries have a more Versatile’ approach to solving environmental prob...
Policy Content
