3 ms·
That is hard I think, as there are patents that are not licenced because no one wants to - but I think every holder of a patent must licence it to any party int
by lukan 3y ago
That is hard I think, as there are patents that are not licenced because no one wants to - but I think every holder of a patent must licence it to any party interested. So just "sitting on patents" is not really possible to my knowledge. (but I am really not an expert here)
- floating-io 3y agoIf I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, then I'm not sure where you got that idea. Patent holders are not required to license their patents last time I checked. You are simply required to acquire a license prior to using patented technology. If they don't want to license it, you're SOL. (edit: if you were speculating on what should be, and not what is, then my bad... :)
- lukan 3y ago"Patent holders are not required to license their patents last time I checked." That is apparently right and I learned it wrong (but it does seems wrong to me). edit: after reading the siblings answer, I apparently wrongly overgeneralized the way it works with patents in standards
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- smachiz 3y agoOnly for patents used in standards - where the standard enforces FRAND/RAND/other licensing schemes to insure that 'standards-required' patents are available to all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminat... This is Qualcomm's big business (and others), getting their patents into standards like 5G and then charging people a fair amount to use it - and they have to license it to everyone, even their arch nemesis. Or you just buy their chips. For a patent of something you invented, but did not submit to become part of a standards-body, you absolutely can choose not to license it for any amount of money.