3 ms·

Any reason/proof Pinch-To-Zoom (and the other Apple patents in the Samsung case) will not be licensed under FRAND ?

magicalist 14y ago
FRAND is not really a legal definition in the US (although that's changing somewhat as more precedent is being set). So far it's almost always been enforcement of agreements (through actual contracts and implicit licenses) due to the patent holder participating in things like standards bodies. That's why most of the major standards bodies require patent disclosure and some sort of patent license (whether it's royalty free or otherwise) in order to participate in them. In any case, I don't believe pinch to zoom is currently being standardized anywhere, so why would it be licensed under FRAND terms? I like Posner's argument where many of these types of patents, if they're going to be granted at all, should be held to essentially FRAND terms (since there aren't really any damages you can show in the case of infringement), but we'll see how that goes.
hmottestad 14y ago
Apple said that they, in the prelude to the suit, talked with Samsung about licensing their patents. So all in all I don't think apple has a monopoly since they will likely be forced to license their patents.
_djo_ 14y ago
FRAND only applies as a legal principle of the patent in question is part of an industry standard. So a Samsung patent that got incorporated into the UMTS should become a FRAND patent. The rules do vary from standards body to standards body. Google has argued that industry-common patents, not just industry-standard patents, should fall under FRAND terms as well. In other words a patent that enables multitouch gestures is so essential to modern smartphones that you can't compete without it. I'm still ambivalent on the whole patent question, though I'm intrigued by the idea of making all patents licensable under FRAND terms.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  FRAND terms in this case can only be "reasonable" and "nondiscriminatory" if they also account for copyleft, ceative commons, and open source implementations.

FRAND is not really a legal definition in the US (although that's changing somewhat as more precedent is being set). So far it's almost always been enforcement of agreements (through actual contracts and implicit licenses) due to the patent holder participating in things like standards bodies. That's why most of the major standards bodies require patent disclosure and some sort of patent license (whether it's royalty free or otherwise) in order to participate in them. In any case, I don't believe pinch to zoom is currently being standardized anywhere, so why would it be licensed under FRAND terms? I like Posner's argument where many of these types of patents, if they're going to be granted at all, should be held to essentially FRAND terms (since there aren't really any damages you can show in the case of infringement), but we'll see how that goes.

hmottestad 14y ago

Apple said that they, in the prelude to the suit, talked with Samsung about licensing their patents. So all in all I don't think apple has a monopoly since they will likely be forced to license their patents.

_djo_ 14y ago

FRAND only applies as a legal principle of the patent in question is part of an industry standard. So a Samsung patent that got incorporated into the UMTS should become a FRAND patent. The rules do vary from standards body to standards body. Google has argued that industry-common patents, not just industry-standard patents, should fall under FRAND terms as well. In other words a patent that enables multitouch gestures is so essential to modern smartphones that you can't compete without it. I'm still ambivalent on the whole patent question, though I'm intrigued by the idea of making all patents licensable under FRAND terms.

nitrogen 14y ago
FRAND terms in this case can only be "reasonable" and "nondiscriminatory" if they also account for copyleft, ceative commons, and open source implementations.