4 ms·
It’s so wild that a patent owner is allowed to refuse to sell a license to use the patented technology.
by mort96 3y ago
It’s so wild that a patent owner is allowed to refuse to sell a license to use the patented technology.
- caminante 3y agoHuh? That doesn't apply here at all. > To avoid a complete ban on sales, Apple had two months to cut a deal with Masimo to license its technology, or it could appeal to the Biden administration to reverse the ruling. But Joe Kiani, the chief executive of Masimo, said in an interview that Apple had not engaged in licensing negotiations
- mort96 3y ago> “If they don’t want to use our chip, I’ll work with them to make their product good,” Mr. Kiani said. “Once it’s good enough, I’m happy to give them a license.” Doesn’t this quite plainly mean that they aren’t willing to just license the patent?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- caminante 3y agoNothing of the sort. How does this statement reject a willingness to license?
- doix 3y agoBecause the options are either use their hardware or "work with them". That seems pretty unreasonable to me. You're holding them hostage to collaborate. I'm not an Apple fan, but this feels like abuse of the patent system. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it's legal, but being forced to work with a company to access their parent feels like absolute bullshit. Ask for your $X per device sold and be done with it.
- Eisenstein 3y agoWhy do you think it should be illegal to refuse to license your patented technology to another company?
- mort96 3y agoWhat is your actual argument? That they’re willing to license the tech (despite their statement to the contrary), or that it doesn’t matter because it should be legal to refuse to sell licenses?
- Eisenstein 3y agoIt is legal to refuse to license. I want to know why you think it shouldn't be.
- mort96 3y agoI obviously know it is legal to refuse to license, that's the problem. If your whole argument is "it should be legal to refuse to license a patent", I don't know why you went down the whole "They aren't refusing to license the patent" route.
- Eisenstein 3y agoI have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't made any arguments. I asked you a question.
- mort96 3y agoSorry, I didn't pay enough attention to usernames. caminante argued that the company is willing to license the patent ("How does this statement reject a willingness to license" etc) and I didn't notice that you're not caminante. My bad.
- chillfox 3y agoThat statement very much reads like they aren't willing to license unless they get final say on products using the tech. Which sounds quite unreasonable as a condition for patent licensing.
- caminante 3y ago"If the horse doesn't want to drink my water" I'm not depriving the horse of water because the horse doesn't want to drink!
- taeric 3y agoSorta? Compulsive licensing is something that only exists in a very narrow market for copyright material. Pretty sure it does not exist at all for patents. You can argue that it is somewhat moot here, as Apple was not showing any willingness to negotiate. But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license.
- bumby 3y agoI wasn’t aware either, but it looks like it’s a thing for some potentially critical patents. The example in Wikipedia is the US govt threatening Bayer with compulsory licensing of their anthrax treatment if they refused to lower their price.
- pests 3y agoI beleive the Wright Brothers also had to give up / forced to licence their patent which was key to modern flight. Maybe WW1 related? I might be wrong here butI remember reading it somewhere.
- unyttigfjelltol 3y agoPractically speaking, damages for the infringement would be a reasonable royalty.[1] So, having to go through the courts to enforce a patent is sorta like a compulsory license, in a way. Going to the ITC skips that, goes simply to stopping future sales. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284#
- caminante 3y ago> But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license. Why is that revelation "wild?" Imagine saying, > It’s so wild that [Bernie] is allowed to refuse to [allow Bob] to [rent Bernie's spare bedroom]. putting aside the fact that [Bob] doesn't even want to rent from [Bernie] as applied to the situation here with the watches! :-)
- 3y ago
- markmark 3y agoMandatory licensing would be wild. If LG invent something that makes TVs better should they have to licence it to Samsung? Or should they just be able to make better TVs and use their invention for market differentiation?
- KennyBlanken 3y agoBeing required to conduct good-faith negotiation sounds like a great idea, a reasonable tradeoff between protection that encourages innovation so that inventors can profit off their inventions, while also allowing for society to progress based on those inventions. LG could ignore trolls and morons - but if Samsung makes a good-faith, fair offer to license the technology, they should have to have a good reason for saying no beyond "we don't feel like it." One company, Cobasys (owned by an oil company!) purposefully refused to license NiMH technology in transportation. The patent system was never intended to be used like a weapon to protect a market.
- mort96 3y ago> The patent system was never intended to be used like a weapon to protect a market. This doesn't seem true to me. Nothing about the design of the patent system makes sense if the intent if not to use it like a weapon to let a giant company protect a whole area of the market from competition.
- mort96 3y agoWhy shouldn't they have to license it to Samsung? Why do we want to stifle innovation by preventing Samsung from using any of LG's tech and vice versa? Imagine the TVs we could've had if the two companies could combine the best parts of each others' technologies.
- dminuoso 3y agoAs a point of interest, there is a class of patterns called Standard Essential Patents (SEP), which the patent holder is required to sell licenses under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) conditions when an implementation of that patented idea is required to comply with certain standards.
- rchaud 3y agoIf I offer you $100 for an iPhone, should you be forced to sell to me at that price?
- mort96 3y agoI don’t understand what relevance your question has, but of course not?