4 ms·

Taking legal action against FRAND abuse is hardly unique to the US. http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/european-commission-to-issue-statement.html http://www.f

by comex 13y ago

Taking legal action against FRAND abuse is hardly unique to the US. http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/european-commission-to-issue-statement.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/european-commission-to-is... See also Mueller on this veto; while I often disagree with him, I tend to agree on this issue: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/obama-administration-vetoes-itc-import.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/obama-administration-veto...

jivatmanx 13y ago
The problem I have with this argument, is, isn't the point of every technological advance to become widespread and Standards-Essential? If we're going to disallow them, why have patents at all? For "Look-And-Feel" patents?
- comex 13y ago
  Because even strong software patents often have alternatives, and weak ones are easy to find an alternative to, decreasing their value, but once a standard protocol requires their use, the patent holder can jack up the price. As an extreme example, consider the exFAT patents: there are many file systems superior to exFAT that have no need for whatever bits of functionality Microsoft patented, but because Windows speaks exFAT as one of few alternatives, some companies have licensed them. Not exactly a standard, but the same idea.
corresation 13y ago
The ITC specifically considered FRAND, so interesting that you or the perpetually wrong troll Mueller decide that it is abuse.
- throwawaykf 13y ago
  Well, evidently the ITC "considered" FRAND inaccurately, as their decision conflicted with both, the Obama Administration and the European Commission. (Not to mention the opinions of jurists such as Judge Posner.) You could cry "protectionism" on this veto, but what excuse could you make for the EC's actions?
  - corresation 13y ago
    Bizarre how you group in multiple completely different actions and pretend that they're one. And the Obama Administration didn't make a statement about FRAND or the correctness of the ITC's judgment -- they simply decided that they'd rather not have an American company's products blocked.
    - throwawaykf 13y ago
      Completely different actions with precisely the same underlyng issue: abuse of standards essential patents. Bizarre how you do not notice this. And this is not a new issue, and not just restricted to the smartphone patent wars. The same criticisms were made and similar outrage was outpoured in the semiconductor industry when Rambus tried to pull similar shenanigans. [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits
josteink 13y ago
Apple was offered the same terms as everyone else but they "decided"that this wasn't fair and demanded special treatment. Apple is the one not following the FRAND spirit here.

by comex 13y ago

jivatmanx 13y ago

The problem I have with this argument, is, isn't the point of every technological advance to become widespread and Standards-Essential? If we're going to disallow them, why have patents at all? For "Look-And-Feel" patents?

comex 13y ago
Because even strong software patents often have alternatives, and weak ones are easy to find an alternative to, decreasing their value, but once a standard protocol requires their use, the patent holder can jack up the price. As an extreme example, consider the exFAT patents: there are many file systems superior to exFAT that have no need for whatever bits of functionality Microsoft patented, but because Windows speaks exFAT as one of few alternatives, some companies have licensed them. Not exactly a standard, but the same idea.

corresation 13y ago

The ITC specifically considered FRAND, so interesting that you or the perpetually wrong troll Mueller decide that it is abuse.

throwawaykf 13y ago
Well, evidently the ITC "considered" FRAND inaccurately, as their decision conflicted with both, the Obama Administration and the European Commission. (Not to mention the opinions of jurists such as Judge Posner.) You could cry "protectionism" on this veto, but what excuse could you make for the EC's actions?
- corresation 13y ago
  Bizarre how you group in multiple completely different actions and pretend that they're one. And the Obama Administration didn't make a statement about FRAND or the correctness of the ITC's judgment -- they simply decided that they'd rather not have an American company's products blocked.
  - throwawaykf 13y ago
    Completely different actions with precisely the same underlyng issue: abuse of standards essential patents. Bizarre how you do not notice this. And this is not a new issue, and not just restricted to the smartphone patent wars. The same criticisms were made and similar outrage was outpoured in the semiconductor industry when Rambus tried to pull similar shenanigans. [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus#Lawsuits

josteink 13y ago

Apple was offered the same terms as everyone else but they "decided"that this wasn't fair and demanded special treatment. Apple is the one not following the FRAND spirit here.