5 ms·

But they're almost all licensed under FRAND terms which in theory should prevent them being used the way Motorola & Samsung have decided to use them. There are

by _djo_ 14y ago

But they're almost all licensed under FRAND terms which in theory should prevent them being used the way Motorola & Samsung have decided to use them. There are many other discussions about that concept on HN.

bryanlarsen 14y ago
Nokia's argument was that a "reasonable" term for FRAND was a patent cross-license. Apple disagreed, and a lawsuit ensued. Unfortunately, the judge agreed with Apple on that item. Everybody thinks that Nokia won their lawsuit since the judge awarded them a huge amount of damages. In my opinion, the whole industry lost. Cross-licenses were the standard way of dealing with the patent thicket before Apple decided to upset the cart. The cross-license racket effectively locked out smaller competitors, so it was far from fair, but it does seem saner than the current blood bath.
- _djo_ 14y ago
  Apple refused to cross-licence because it was suing with design and function patents, not FRAND patents (of which Apple's were already fairly licensed), so it wasn't under the same obligations. It's the same logic underpinning their legal battles with Samsung and Motorola, where Apple is using design and function patents (some of them absurd) while the other two only have FRAND patents. Mind you the whole thing is a mess, I've said before that I hope this all leads to some very necessary reform of the system. For one, the whole idea of FRAND patents has clearly come apart.
- cube13 14y ago
  >Unfortunately, the judge agreed with Apple on that item. Everybody thinks that Nokia won their lawsuit since the judge awarded them a huge amount of damages. In my opinion, the whole industry lost. Cross-licenses were the standard way of dealing with the patent thicket before Apple decided to upset the cart. This is how this is supposed to work, though. Apple and Nokia attempted to negotiate for a while, and could not come to an agreement. That's what prompted the lawsuit. The judgement was over two things: 1. Whether or not Apple violated Nokia's patents(which they were found guilty of). 2. Whether or not Nokia's terms to apple were in-line with FRAND(which they were found not). Since the two could not come to an agreement, they had to use the courts to decide.
- josephlord 14y ago
  It cannot be FRAND to insist on cross licence as the impact discriminates against those with patents. The ND part. It would imply that if I can get one essential patent into an important spec I can force you to licence hundreds of completely unrelated patents. That just can't be right.

by _djo_ 14y ago

bryanlarsen 14y ago

Nokia's argument was that a "reasonable" term for FRAND was a patent cross-license. Apple disagreed, and a lawsuit ensued. Unfortunately, the judge agreed with Apple on that item. Everybody thinks that Nokia won their lawsuit since the judge awarded them a huge amount of damages. In my opinion, the whole industry lost. Cross-licenses were the standard way of dealing with the patent thicket before Apple decided to upset the cart. The cross-license racket effectively locked out smaller competitors, so it was far from fair, but it does seem saner than the current blood bath.

_djo_ 14y ago
Apple refused to cross-licence because it was suing with design and function patents, not FRAND patents (of which Apple's were already fairly licensed), so it wasn't under the same obligations. It's the same logic underpinning their legal battles with Samsung and Motorola, where Apple is using design and function patents (some of them absurd) while the other two only have FRAND patents. Mind you the whole thing is a mess, I've said before that I hope this all leads to some very necessary reform of the system. For one, the whole idea of FRAND patents has clearly come apart.
cube13 14y ago
>Unfortunately, the judge agreed with Apple on that item. Everybody thinks that Nokia won their lawsuit since the judge awarded them a huge amount of damages. In my opinion, the whole industry lost. Cross-licenses were the standard way of dealing with the patent thicket before Apple decided to upset the cart. This is how this is supposed to work, though. Apple and Nokia attempted to negotiate for a while, and could not come to an agreement. That's what prompted the lawsuit. The judgement was over two things: 1. Whether or not Apple violated Nokia's patents(which they were found guilty of). 2. Whether or not Nokia's terms to apple were in-line with FRAND(which they were found not). Since the two could not come to an agreement, they had to use the courts to decide.
josephlord 14y ago
It cannot be FRAND to insist on cross licence as the impact discriminates against those with patents. The ND part. It would imply that if I can get one essential patent into an important spec I can force you to licence hundreds of completely unrelated patents. That just can't be right.