To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Standards are built on existing technologies which are often already patented. It would not be possible to define a standard without using any patented technology.
Then, I don't see a problem with FRAND patents until someone try to abuse the system to force a newcomer to cross license their own non-FRAND patents.
Which is exactly what Nokia, Samsung and Motorola tried to do.
Nokia did it more or less fairly in the sense they didn't ask for an injunction.
At that time, any newcomer would have had no choice but accepting. Apple was however big enough and had such a winner product with the iPhone that they were able to refuse to cross-license their non-FRAND patents.
FRAND patents when misused allow the historical actors to dictate their law to any newcomer without such a portfolio: this is exactly what Thom seems to prefer. A time when mobile corporations ruled the mobile industry.




Member since:
2006-04-12
Simply change the rules at the standards level. If you want your IP to be part of a standard then you must assign the rights over to the standards body. The standards body allows anyone who implements the standard to have royalty free access to the patent. Structure it in such a way that if the IP is being used outside of implementing the standard that the original company gets to negotiate as with any other patent.
The idea of standards essential patents is, simply put, stupid. No company should have to pay another company anything to implement a standard.