I just want to point out that in the Qualcomm case, their patents were used in creating standards (CDMA-related I assume?). From the article: > When a standar

I just want to point out that in the Qualcomm case, their patents were used in creating standards (CDMA-related I assume?). From the article: > When a standards group is developing a new wireless standard, it assembles a list of patents that are essential to implement the standard—these are known as standards essential patents. It then asks patent holders to promise to license those patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Patent holders usually agree to these terms because incorporating a patent into a standard enhances its value. > But Qualcomm doesn't seem to be honoring its FRAND commitments. FRAND patents are supposed to be available on the same terms to anyone who wants to license them—either customers or competitors. But Qualcomm refuses to license its standards-essential patents to other chipmakers. So Qualcomm has a monopoly on essential technologies to implement standards. If you "come up with your own solution", then you are no longer standards-compliant. That means these patents give them a non-negotiable monopoly on an entire industry. > You wouldn't say copyright gives an artist a monopoly on any particular type of creativity You wouldn't say that because that's factually incorrect. Copyright protects specific works, not ideas/concepts/styles/etc.