Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Feb 2012 19:26 UTC
In the News The first big hurdle has been taken by Google and Motorola Mobility. The European Union has given the green light for Google to proceed with its acquisition of Motorola Mobility. The EU will, however, monitor the deal and its outcome for potential patent abuse. Update: And there we go, the US DoJ has approved the deal as well. Update II: The just-linked DoJ report also approves the Nortel patent sale to Apple, Microsoft, and RIM. I'm hoping for lots of fireworks here so the patent system blows up in Google's, Microsoft's and Apple's faces, so we can point and laugh about all the money they wasted.
Thread beginning with comment 507026
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[17]: Huh?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 14th Feb 2012 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE[16]: Huh?"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

Even more simply, I can break down your logic with your last statement:

"Et voilĂ , defensive use of FRAND patents. Now it's up to the courts to decide if it truly was a FRAND offer. If the courts say it is, Apple could be fcuked. If the courts say it was not a valid FRAND offer, the courts send them back to the negotiation table."

Let's assume the Courts determine the offer, prior to withdrawal, was a valid FRAND offer: what is the basis for withdrawing the offer then at that point?

Edited 2012-02-14 01:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[18]: Huh?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2012 01:14 in reply to "RE[17]: Huh?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

prior to withdrawal,


My example has no withdrawal. It has a REFUSAL from Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[19]: Huh?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 14th Feb 2012 01:27 in reply to "RE[18]: Huh?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Which is why your hypothetical situation isn't addressing the question: if standards related patents are offered on free and/or reasonable terms can the owner still choose to discriminate based on other legal threats or competition issues?

All your hypothetical says is: Company A may make an offer on terms which may or may not be free and/or reasonable and then they can still not provide them to competitors with no logical basis for such a conclusion in the hypothetical.

Here's another hypothetical: Company A, the owner of standards-essential patents, and Company B already have a FRAND agreement in place. Company B then goes and definitively and legally violates a non-standards-essential of Company A (let's even make it a very novel hardware patent to make it very easy). Does Company A now have the right to deny Company B access to standard essential patents?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[19]: Huh?
by jared_wilkes on Tue 14th Feb 2012 01:33 in reply to "RE[18]: Huh?"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

My apology: I see the distinction you are making, and I had a slight misunderstanding. But this makes an already useless hypothetical even more useless. Company A is not doing ANYTHING whatsoever to be defensive other than make the very same offer they were making before needing to be "defensive." Which does not show me how standards-essential patents can be used defensively, it's only avoiding the question.

Edited 2012-02-14 01:33 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1