Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 13:36 UTC
Legal "One of the exhibits Samsung has now made public tells an interesting tale. It's the slide presentation that Apple showed Samsung when it first tried (and failed) to get Samsung to license Apple's patents prior to the start of litigation. While some of the numbers were earlier reported on when the exhibit was used at trial, the slides themselves provide more data - specifically on the difference between what Apple wanted Samsung to pay for Windows phones and for Android phones. The slides punch huge holes in Apple's FRAND arguments. Apple and Microsoft complain to regulators about FRAND rates being excessive and oppressive at approximately $6 per unit, or 2.4%; but the Apple offer was not only at a much higher rate, it targeted Android in a way that seems deliberately designed to destroy its ability to compete in the marketplace." Eagerly awaiting the 45 paragraph comment explaining how this is completely fair and not hypocritical at all. Bonus points if it includes something about Eric Schmidt being on Apple's board, and, double bonus point if it mentions one of the QWERTY Android prototypes. Mega Epic Bonus if it somehow manages to draw a line from Edison, Tesla, to Jobs.
Thread beginning with comment 539543
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
here is a crazy idea...
by darcysmith on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 16:26 UTC
darcysmith
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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: here is a crazy idea...
by majipoor on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 20:37 in reply to "here is a crazy idea..."
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

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.

Reply Parent Score: 0