4 ms·

Apple should pay. No questions about that. But how much should they pay? In this special case of patents, Motorola is expected to charge Apple the same rates a

Apple should pay. No questions about that. But how much should they pay? In this special case of patents, Motorola is expected to charge Apple the same rates as other licensees. In fact, they have committed to do so. But now, they are going back on that commitment and also trying to double dip. FRAND (Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) patent commitment is an essential part of standard setting process. If companies are allowed to abuse FRAND committed patents like this, there will be chaos. We'll go back to the digital dark ages when there were no standards or interoperability.

greyfade 14y ago
I don't think Apple should pay. And I question whether anyone else should, either. These "standards-essential" patents are under RAND terms because to do otherwise devalues the patent and provides incentive for the standard to "work around" the patent. If Motorola wants revenue from that patent, they must license it under RAND terms. But now that there is significant investment in the infrastructure that uses these standards, what right does anyone have in threatening anyone else over their use of this patented technology? Judge Posner, presiding over Apple v. Motorola, which he has dismissed with prejudice, seems to feel the same way: That since Motorola has licensed their standards-essential patent under FRAND terms, they essentially lose their right to demand an injunction against Apple. (At least, that's my reading of his decision.) I.e., they are to negotiate reasonable terms or get no royalties at all. The question in my mind is at what point these patents should be expired early due to their status as standards-essential; for without them, the standard must be redesigned, and with them, every participant must pay royalties to one incumbent. At no point is this fair, reasonable, or non-discriminatory. Personally, I don't see the point of this run-around: These patents are not a reward for invention; they're cudgels with which to steal your competitor's lunch money. They should be invalidated or expired for that reason alone.
- sjwright 14y ago
  Rather than having this ambiguous FRAND principle, standards bodies should require that companies that want their patents included in a standard hand over these patents to a patent pool in return for a shareholding in that pool.
  - greyfade 14y ago
    I'm dubious of patent pools. What benefit do they provide beside the protection of other members of the pool?

greyfade 14y ago

I don't think Apple should pay. And I question whether anyone else should, either. These "standards-essential" patents are under RAND terms because to do otherwise devalues the patent and provides incentive for the standard to "work around" the patent. If Motorola wants revenue from that patent, they must license it under RAND terms. But now that there is significant investment in the infrastructure that uses these standards, what right does anyone have in threatening anyone else over their use of this patented technology? Judge Posner, presiding over Apple v. Motorola, which he has dismissed with prejudice, seems to feel the same way: That since Motorola has licensed their standards-essential patent under FRAND terms, they essentially lose their right to demand an injunction against Apple. (At least, that's my reading of his decision.) I.e., they are to negotiate reasonable terms or get no royalties at all. The question in my mind is at what point these patents should be expired early due to their status as standards-essential; for without them, the standard must be redesigned, and with them, every participant must pay royalties to one incumbent. At no point is this fair, reasonable, or non-discriminatory. Personally, I don't see the point of this run-around: These patents are not a reward for invention; they're cudgels with which to steal your competitor's lunch money. They should be invalidated or expired for that reason alone.

sjwright 14y ago
Rather than having this ambiguous FRAND principle, standards bodies should require that companies that want their patents included in a standard hand over these patents to a patent pool in return for a shareholding in that pool.
- greyfade 14y ago
  I'm dubious of patent pools. What benefit do they provide beside the protection of other members of the pool?