3 ms·

@sgift: no, there is some definition of what FRAND is. It's just that Apple doesn't like it. In once instance, Apple's own FRAND expert came out testifying ag

@sgift: no, there is some definition of what FRAND is. It's just that Apple doesn't like it. In once instance, Apple's own FRAND expert came out testifying against Apple (in a 2012 ITC case involving Samsung and Apple). And no, under FRAND, Qualcomm can refuse license.

dpark 9y ago
> @sgift: no, there is some definition of what FRAND is. There really isn't a clear definition for "fair" or "reasonable", which is why this ends up in court. > And no, under FRAND, Qualcomm can refuse license. No. That's the "non-discriminatory" part. This one is actually pretty clear.
- tooltalk 9y ago
  I'm not sure where you are getting it from, but according to ETSI IPR Guide, Section 1.11 (http://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-guide-on-ipr.pdf http://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-guide-on-ipr.pdf): The purpose of the ETSI IPR Policy is to facilitate the standards making process within ETSI. In complying with the Policy the Technical Bodies should not become involved in legal discussion on IPR matters. The main characteristics of the Policy can be simplified as follows: • Members are fully entitled to hold and benefit from any IPRs which they may own, including the right to refuse the granting of licenses. Sure, let's also look what is allowed and not under FRAND based on Apple's past allegation against FRAND patent holders. USITC 337-TA-794 (Samsung) http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2013/07/337-TA-794-Commission-Opinion-Public-Version.pdf http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/... Apple alleged that Samsung violated FRAND terms in the following ways: 1) Apple argues that Samsung was obligated to make an initial offer to Apple of a specific fair and reasonable royalty rate." (p.60) ITC's finding: The evidence on record does not suppmt Apple's position. Apple's witness on ETSI policy and practice testified the ETSI IPR Policy document has "no precise definition ofFRAND" and that it is expected that parties arrive at a FRAND license through negotiation." (p. 60) Conclusion: Apple's own witness testified that Samsung is under no obligation to make a FRAND "initial offer." Apple and their own expert clearly knew about it. 2) Apple also criticizes Samsung's attempt to negotiate a cross-license of both parties' mobile telephone patent portfolios." ITC's finding: We cannot say that Sam sung's offers in this regard are unreasonable. The record contains evidence of more than 30 Samsung licenses that cover the '348 and '644 patents. See RX-173C, RX-178C, RX-188, RX-189C, RX-191C, RX-193C to -209C, RX-421C, RX-423C. All of those licenses include a cross-license to the licensee's portfolio. That evidence supports a conclusion t~at a portfolio cross-license offer is typical in the industry and reasonable. ... Apple has offered no evidence to suggest that such portfolio cross- licenses are atypical in the industry. 19 In fact, Apple's own witness on ETSI policies affirmed that ETSI anticipates cross-licensing may be part of the process of negotiating a FRAND license between two parties. Conclusion: cross-licensing was unfair in the eyes of Apple only, not everyone else. Apple had zero evidence to backup their claims, and their own expertise again came out against it (meaning they clearly knew about the rule). 3) Apple also complains that Samsung's offer is unreasonable because [some redacted terms Apple claimed was unreasonable] ITC's finding: Apple's argument lacks merit for several reasons. First, as has been articulated in comments to the Commission from Qualcomm, Ericsson, and Samsung, a FRAND license could encompass a range of reasonable terms. A reasonable cross-license with one competitor may involve a balancing payment to Samsung while a reasonable cross-license with another competitor may involve Samsung making a balancing payment. Both types of agreements may be reasonable, depending on the two portfolios at issue and each party's respective volume of sales. F" Conclusion: this is clearly beyond common sense. Apple is just playing dumb. I could go on and on and point out Apple's willful ignorance on FRAND. And, yes, Apple's appeal to ignorance or your ridiculous claim that "There really isn't a clear definition for "fair" or "reasonable"," is not much of a sensical arguement.
  - dpark 9y ago
    > I'm not sure where you are getting it from, but according to ETSI IPR Guide, Section 1.11 That’s not a definition of FRAND, legal or otherwise. This is a statement of the ESTIs view on IP rights. The only reference to FRAND in that section is at the end, where it talks about non-FRAND IP. > Conclusion: Apple's own witness testified that Samsung is under no obligation to make a FRAND "initial offer." Apple and their own expert clearly knew about it. You literally just quoted an expert witness who says that there’s no definition of FRAND in that doc: Apple's witness on ETSI policy and practice testified the ETSI IPR Policy document has "no precise definition of FRAND" You’ve provided no evidence for your claims about FRAND and I’m very uninterested in discussing whether Apple is playing dumb, because I really don’t care.

dpark 9y ago

> @sgift: no, there is some definition of what FRAND is. There really isn't a clear definition for "fair" or "reasonable", which is why this ends up in court. > And no, under FRAND, Qualcomm can refuse license. No. That's the "non-discriminatory" part. This one is actually pretty clear.

tooltalk 9y ago
I'm not sure where you are getting it from, but according to ETSI IPR Guide, Section 1.11 (http://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-guide-on-ipr.pdf http://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-guide-on-ipr.pdf): The purpose of the ETSI IPR Policy is to facilitate the standards making process within ETSI. In complying with the Policy the Technical Bodies should not become involved in legal discussion on IPR matters. The main characteristics of the Policy can be simplified as follows: • Members are fully entitled to hold and benefit from any IPRs which they may own, including the right to refuse the granting of licenses. Sure, let's also look what is allowed and not under FRAND based on Apple's past allegation against FRAND patent holders. USITC 337-TA-794 (Samsung) http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2013/07/337-TA-794-Commission-Opinion-Public-Version.pdf http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/... Apple alleged that Samsung violated FRAND terms in the following ways: 1) Apple argues that Samsung was obligated to make an initial offer to Apple of a specific fair and reasonable royalty rate." (p.60) ITC's finding: The evidence on record does not suppmt Apple's position. Apple's witness on ETSI policy and practice testified the ETSI IPR Policy document has "no precise definition ofFRAND" and that it is expected that parties arrive at a FRAND license through negotiation." (p. 60) Conclusion: Apple's own witness testified that Samsung is under no obligation to make a FRAND "initial offer." Apple and their own expert clearly knew about it. 2) Apple also criticizes Samsung's attempt to negotiate a cross-license of both parties' mobile telephone patent portfolios." ITC's finding: We cannot say that Sam sung's offers in this regard are unreasonable. The record contains evidence of more than 30 Samsung licenses that cover the '348 and '644 patents. See RX-173C, RX-178C, RX-188, RX-189C, RX-191C, RX-193C to -209C, RX-421C, RX-423C. All of those licenses include a cross-license to the licensee's portfolio. That evidence supports a conclusion t~at a portfolio cross-license offer is typical in the industry and reasonable. ... Apple has offered no evidence to suggest that such portfolio cross- licenses are atypical in the industry. 19 In fact, Apple's own witness on ETSI policies affirmed that ETSI anticipates cross-licensing may be part of the process of negotiating a FRAND license between two parties. Conclusion: cross-licensing was unfair in the eyes of Apple only, not everyone else. Apple had zero evidence to backup their claims, and their own expertise again came out against it (meaning they clearly knew about the rule). 3) Apple also complains that Samsung's offer is unreasonable because [some redacted terms Apple claimed was unreasonable] ITC's finding: Apple's argument lacks merit for several reasons. First, as has been articulated in comments to the Commission from Qualcomm, Ericsson, and Samsung, a FRAND license could encompass a range of reasonable terms. A reasonable cross-license with one competitor may involve a balancing payment to Samsung while a reasonable cross-license with another competitor may involve Samsung making a balancing payment. Both types of agreements may be reasonable, depending on the two portfolios at issue and each party's respective volume of sales. F" Conclusion: this is clearly beyond common sense. Apple is just playing dumb. I could go on and on and point out Apple's willful ignorance on FRAND. And, yes, Apple's appeal to ignorance or your ridiculous claim that "There really isn't a clear definition for "fair" or "reasonable"," is not much of a sensical arguement.
- dpark 9y ago
  > I'm not sure where you are getting it from, but according to ETSI IPR Guide, Section 1.11 That’s not a definition of FRAND, legal or otherwise. This is a statement of the ESTIs view on IP rights. The only reference to FRAND in that section is at the end, where it talks about non-FRAND IP. > Conclusion: Apple's own witness testified that Samsung is under no obligation to make a FRAND "initial offer." Apple and their own expert clearly knew about it. You literally just quoted an expert witness who says that there’s no definition of FRAND in that doc: Apple's witness on ETSI policy and practice testified the ETSI IPR Policy document has "no precise definition of FRAND" You’ve provided no evidence for your claims about FRAND and I’m very uninterested in discussing whether Apple is playing dumb, because I really don’t care.