Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Jan 2010 23:38 UTC, submitted by OSGuy
Permalink for comment 404699
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-07-31
There has been a lot of talk about RAND terms and whether Nokia is trying to charge to much for their patents. What I think most of you are missing is that RAND terms probably only applies to so called essential patents, which are patents that are necessary to implement a certain standard/specification.
I'm basing this on the ETSI IPR policy which ought to be quite similar to those of the other associations.
Let's take a silly example: Imagine that there is some specification that requires you to sort a list. There are only two know algorithms for sorting: bubble sort and quick sort, now imagine that some company has a patent for quick sort. That would mean that it is possible to implement the specification without having to buy a license (in other words there are no essential patents) but there exists a so called implementation patent, and usually the owner of that patent is free to charge as much as he likes for that.
I don't know what kind of patents the one Nokia wants to sell are, but I would guess that they are implementation patents an not essential patents.
Edited 2010-01-18 19:28 UTC