4 ms·

It is the law around "standard" essential patents. Company X develops technology and then works the standards process to make their technology the standard. N

It is the law around "standard" essential patents. Company X develops technology and then works the standards process to make their technology the standard. Now anyone who wants to use the standard must license the technology from company X. Phones only work if everyone uses a published standard. In order to have something approved as the standard, company X has to agree beforehand that they will license the tech to everyone at reasonable rates. This was core to Apple's argument. Qualcomm was insisting on unreasonable licensing rates for standards essential patents. I don't know who was right or wrong, but that was the position.

mises 7y ago
They made it a standard. GSM branched off years ago for this exact reason. Phones currently work with two different ones. More importantly, point me to the clause in the Constitution that says, "unless other people really really want it". If any thing, would restriction of a standard not promote a competitor? For years, h.264 licensing was necessary. Now we have AV1.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- GeekyBear 7y ago
  As part of the standards setting process, Qualcomm voluntarily entered into a binding legal agreement to license those patents that are necessary to implement the standard to any competitor who wanted a license, and to license them under FRAND (Fair, Reasonsble And Non Discriminatory) terms. Should contracts only be legally binding until you no longer like the terms you have agreed to?
  - abfan1127 7y ago
    Apple entered into a contract until it didn't like the terms, then just quit paying...
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  The patent clause is a pretty vague and open ended statement, and is clear that (a) it's giving Congress the ability to regulate something (b) to promote the common interest. Common standards are useful, so Congress has chosen to create patent regulation that prohibits refusing to license certain essential patents to your competitors.
- ac29 7y ago
  > They made it a standard. Phones currently work with two different ones. Which 2? If you mean GSM and CDMA, they're effectively dead (yes, I am aware legacy 3G networks are still in use some places). LTE killed them both.

mises 7y ago

They made it a standard. GSM branched off years ago for this exact reason. Phones currently work with two different ones. More importantly, point me to the clause in the Constitution that says, "unless other people really really want it". If any thing, would restriction of a standard not promote a competitor? For years, h.264 licensing was necessary. Now we have AV1.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
GeekyBear 7y ago
As part of the standards setting process, Qualcomm voluntarily entered into a binding legal agreement to license those patents that are necessary to implement the standard to any competitor who wanted a license, and to license them under FRAND (Fair, Reasonsble And Non Discriminatory) terms. Should contracts only be legally binding until you no longer like the terms you have agreed to?
- abfan1127 7y ago
  Apple entered into a contract until it didn't like the terms, then just quit paying...
dodobirdlord 7y ago
The patent clause is a pretty vague and open ended statement, and is clear that (a) it's giving Congress the ability to regulate something (b) to promote the common interest. Common standards are useful, so Congress has chosen to create patent regulation that prohibits refusing to license certain essential patents to your competitors.
ac29 7y ago
> They made it a standard. Phones currently work with two different ones. Which 2? If you mean GSM and CDMA, they're effectively dead (yes, I am aware legacy 3G networks are still in use some places). LTE killed them both.