3 ms·
I still don't understand how these various standardisation bodies, with there FRAND "requirements", don't have mandatory terms that basically say "any attempt t
by olliej 4y ago
I still don't understand how these various standardisation bodies, with there FRAND "requirements", don't have mandatory terms that basically say "any attempt to require non-FRAND terms for any IP shall result in all relevant IP from that company being relicensed as free for the relevant standards". Toss in wording for mandatory bundling nonsense, etc.
It seems like the lack of penalties for abusing IP you agreed to provide on FRAND terms means that there is no penalties for this kind of behavior - worst case scenario you get pushed back to what you had originally agreed to anyway. Making it so being caught violating your agreement meant that you permanently lose all your future IP revenue as well seems like the only thing that would ever cause any change in behaviour.
- jillesvangurp 4y agoThat's because these standardization bodies are run by the same companies benefiting from them and are incentivized to serve their owners and not the public domain. The goal of these standards is not to be open and free but to allow for multiple proprietary but compatible implementations to exist. For better or for worse, mobile phones need to be able to talk to each other via standardized infrastructure and you need to agree some technical specifications for that. That's the need these standardization bodies serve. Making it easy for others to enter the market is not a goal and actually explicitly not a goal. Implementing these specifications requires access to patents from the main specification authors. This ensures these make a nice profit and ensures companies are willing, and even eager, to commit their IP to being part of a standard. It's the key way for them to monetize their R&D.