A “non-assertion obligation” means an obligation that is irrevocably mandatory and undertakes not to assert the requirements required by the committer at any time and in the future anywhere in the world, and which is opposed (i) to the Commission because of the necessary use, performance or violation of such claims arising from the compliance with the present standard or version of these requirements. , or (ii) against the implementers of this standard or a version of these products with respect to those parts of compliant products that result from these parts of compliant products, or (ii) to implement such a version, provided that such a compliant product has been developed by a person or organization that has also entered into a non-assertion obligation or agreement with the licensee with respect to this standard , as amended from time to time by the licensee, in accordance with this standard. In order to avoid any doubt and limitation of the above, if this standard is amended in the future, any patent claim of the implementer, which was a necessary claim under this standard and which is still a necessary claim under the amended version of this Standard, remains subject to the obligation not to assert the implementer. The Commission`s use of registered or other trademarks is governed by the guidelines, procedures and guidelines that can be established and approved by the holders of those trademarks and by the applicable law or as stipulated in a separate agreement applicable between the Commission and those third parties. During the agency hearings on competition, law and intellectual property in the knowledge economy, participants discussed various licensing practices that could promote effective licensing, including non-enforcement clauses (7) Grantbacks (8) and reach through licensing agreements. (9) They considered that these practices could be pro-competitive, under what circumstances they could be anti-competitive, and whether the intellectual life guidelines for cartels and abuse of dominance contained appropriate guidelines for assessing the impact of these agreements on cartels. (10) In general, the roundtable participants agreed that the basic principles set out in the ON THE ANTITRUST IP guidelines were in themselves preferable to much better rules that respect or condemn a certain licensing practice, regardless of the circumstances in which it is applied. (11) In addition, roundtable participants agreed that identifying such scenarios requires, in practice, a highly factual individual analysis, although there may be theories about anti-competitive licensing practices.