Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 20:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 547359
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-14
You seem to display a certain level of ignorance about SEP's. No company is forced to submit its patents to a standard. By submitting its patents to a standard, the company is agreeing to limitations on how it can license its patents, specifically on discrimination, in exchange for a guaranteed royalty for anyone who wants to implement the standard. Using SEPs in the manner that Motorola and Samsung have been is detrimental to the aims and is rightly seen as anticompetitive. It's like Rambus, except only worse.
The patents are more useful precisely because they are part of the standard. There a many patents that do not make the cut for any standard which could have been chosen instead. So any company stands to benefit a great deal by having their patents included in a standard. So it is right that they are real and substantial limitations on how these patents can be used in litigation and also in the licensing terms.