4 ms·
A patent owner can accept FRAND conditions and the patent becomes part of the standard. They then earn a steady stream of licensing money off the ensuing trilli
by sjwright 14y ago
A patent owner can accept FRAND conditions and the patent becomes part of the standard. They then earn a steady stream of licensing money off the ensuing trillion dollar industry.
A patent owner can reject FRAND and their technology does not get included in the standard.
There is no third option.
You can't decide after the trillion dollar industry establishes, to renege on FRAND, because your patent was only made part of the standard -- and therefore only has value -- because of that commitment to FRAND.
- smeg 14y agoIf it were simple why aren't these lawsuits being thrown out the front door? Why isn't FRAND turning out to be the watertight defence it ought to be? (serious question I would love to know the answer to, as these FRAND related lawsuits seem to keep coming up over and over again).
- ktizo 14y agoFRAND has no precise legal definition and has not had any reasonable test in court that would establish precedent, as far as I am aware.
- thechut 14y agoNot all of the patents are FRAND licensing related! See my answer in the other comment
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- josteink 14y agoThere is no third option. You can't decide after the trillion dollar industry establishes, to renege on FRAND To play devils advocate though: What you consider "fair" licensing terms might change. Maybe Samsung finds it absolutely fair that their patents should be valued higher, when Apple has 60% profit margins selling essentially the same product they do, made by parts they make, yet they only have 20% margins themselves. That hardly seems fair, does it? And if you disagree about that, how would you argue that it is technically unfair? There is no doubt about Apple making a shitload right now. "Fair" is really a pretty shitty legal term, open for lots of wish-washy interpretation, instead of some simple black and white.
- czr80 14y agoNote that FRAND is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. That last part is an explicit promise to treat all users the same, irrespective of their profit margins or anything else.
- josteink 14y agoI'm not arguing that. I'm just arguing that the "no third option" is overly simplistic. Samsung can decide to change their licensing terms if they deem them no longer "fair", as you note, as long as it is done in a non-discriminatory fashion. Edit: Oh well. That's what playing devil's advocate gets me :)
- mayanksinghal 14y ago> They then earn a steady stream of licensing money off the ensuing trillion dollar industry. Isn't what this about? Motorola is not looking for a third option - it is pressing on the first itself.
- flyinRyan 14y agoWrong, the third option is precisely what they're trying to do. Which is why the parent mentioned it.