3 ms·

Nope. A patent is an exclusive right yo an invention. They aren't forced to license it to you or anyone else.

by sjs382 3y ago

generic92034 3y ago
The exception would be standard essential patents, as far as I know.
- stonogo 3y ago
  The standards bodies can encourage FRAND licensing, but there is no legal requirement backing it beyond the patent holder agreeing to it.
  - generic92034 3y ago
    Thanks for the correction, I misremembered that, it seems. On the other hand, an SEP holder not licensing the patent with FRAND terms will have a hard time to establish any kind of standard, in some scenarios.
    - stonogo 3y ago
      I agree with you, it would be counterproductive. The more common occurrance is that one of the patent-holding entities opts out of the FRAND agreement, holding all the implementors of the standard hostage. An example would be Forgent's acquisition of a patent they interpreted to be essential to JPEG. The patent was eventually invalidated in the courts, but it caused a lot of headaches for a few years in the early 2000s.
giaour 3y ago
There are a few exceptions in US law (e.g., provisions in the Defense Production Act) that can allow a patent owner to be compelled to license their IP. IANAL but I believe this generally requires an officially declared emergency of some kind.
- _delirium 3y ago
  There are additional exceptions short of a declared emergency, but rarely invoked. So in practice I agree this is unlikely to happen with e-ink displays. But for legal nerds I'll elaborate anyway. Some exceptions are obviously inapplicable here, e.g. special rules for plant varieties [1] and nuclear energy [2]. The one most likely to apply to e-ink displays is that, under the Bayh-Dole act, if an invention was funded by government grants, and the patent holder fails to make it widely available, the government has so-called "march-in rights" to license it to third parties themselves. However this has never been successfully used. Wikipedia summarizes: "Though this right is, in theory, quite powerful, it has not proven so in terms of its practical application" [3]. [1] Perhaps because it's controversial to allow plant varieties to be patented in the first place, the statute for them has an explicit compulsory license clause (see the last subsection): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/chapter-57/subchapter-II/part-D https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/chapter-57/subchap... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2183 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2183 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act#Petitions_for_march-in_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act#Petition...
- sjs382 3y ago
  Yeah, I initially threw in some caveats but removed them for brevity and because they don't really apply to the topic at hand (eink). I mean, someone can also compel you to license your IP using a hammer.

Nope. A patent is an exclusive right yo an invention. They aren't forced to license it to you or anyone else.

by sjs382 3y ago

Nope. A patent is an exclusive right yo an invention. They aren't forced to license it to you or anyone else.

generic92034 3y ago

The exception would be standard essential patents, as far as I know.

stonogo 3y ago
The standards bodies can encourage FRAND licensing, but there is no legal requirement backing it beyond the patent holder agreeing to it.
- generic92034 3y ago
  Thanks for the correction, I misremembered that, it seems. On the other hand, an SEP holder not licensing the patent with FRAND terms will have a hard time to establish any kind of standard, in some scenarios.
  - stonogo 3y ago
    I agree with you, it would be counterproductive. The more common occurrance is that one of the patent-holding entities opts out of the FRAND agreement, holding all the implementors of the standard hostage. An example would be Forgent's acquisition of a patent they interpreted to be essential to JPEG. The patent was eventually invalidated in the courts, but it caused a lot of headaches for a few years in the early 2000s.

giaour 3y ago

There are a few exceptions in US law (e.g., provisions in the Defense Production Act) that can allow a patent owner to be compelled to license their IP. IANAL but I believe this generally requires an officially declared emergency of some kind.

_delirium 3y ago
There are additional exceptions short of a declared emergency, but rarely invoked. So in practice I agree this is unlikely to happen with e-ink displays. But for legal nerds I'll elaborate anyway. Some exceptions are obviously inapplicable here, e.g. special rules for plant varieties [1] and nuclear energy [2]. The one most likely to apply to e-ink displays is that, under the Bayh-Dole act, if an invention was funded by government grants, and the patent holder fails to make it widely available, the government has so-called "march-in rights" to license it to third parties themselves. However this has never been successfully used. Wikipedia summarizes: "Though this right is, in theory, quite powerful, it has not proven so in terms of its practical application" [3]. [1] Perhaps because it's controversial to allow plant varieties to be patented in the first place, the statute for them has an explicit compulsory license clause (see the last subsection): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/chapter-57/subchapter-II/part-D https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/chapter-57/subchap... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2183 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2183 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act#Petitions_for_march-in_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act#Petition...
sjs382 3y ago
Yeah, I initially threw in some caveats but removed them for brevity and because they don't really apply to the topic at hand (eink). I mean, someone can also compel you to license your IP using a hammer.