Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Jan 2013 20:04 UTC
Legal "As was widely expected, the Federal Trade Commission announced this morning that it has reached a settlement agreement with Google, bringing the commission's antitrust investigations into the search giant to a close. Two different areas of Google's business were being explored: the way it prioritized search results, and the way that Google had sought injunctions against devices that were thought to have infringed upon standards-essential patents from Motorola." Would have loved to see the FRAND system crumble, though. Let the patent mess explode - to change the system, we need disruption, not appeasement.
Thread beginning with comment 547165
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

Eh, you seem to be missing something here.


I am missing something, but it's not in the FTC agreement or recent EC action. It's here and places like groklaw that are delusionally pro-Google, anti-Apple, or anti-patents (but somehow SEP patents are important for them, can't make sense of it.)

The FTC has just made it abundantly clear that it does not want companies to sue for infringement of FRAND patents after the infringing party refuses to pay up. Something similar is happening in Europe with Apple and Samsung.


Complete and utter nonsense. There's nothing in the US or in the EC that remotely suggest that there should not be remuneration, or litigation to be remunerated, for SEPs. You are conflating injunctions with getting paid for patents and/or suing. This is complete, utter hogwash. Not being able to ban a product is not equivalent with not being able to sue to get paid for patents.

Again, simply consider the situation Apple is in with non-SEPs. They actually have jury verdicts for infringements but have lacked success getting injunctions. Does their lack of success getting injunctions imply their patents aren't legally enforceable (even after they have been legally validated and awarded)? Merely suggesting that preventing injunctions for SEPs is equivalent to dissuading any lawsuit for SEP patents implies complete idiocy -- either on the part of the suggester or the audience he/she's attempting to dump it on.

This essentially makes them meaningless, since if a FRAND patent holder can't sue for infringement, what else is he going to do when an infringer refuses to pay up? Stomp his feet?


Please show me a single action, document, or ruling that even suggests there is a movement to prevent any litigation or remuneration for SEP patents. You can't. The only thing affected is injunctive relief (which has become difficult to get whether or not the patent is standard essential anyway).

Edited 2013-01-03 23:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yup, you're right - this is indeed solely about injunctions. My mistake.

I still maintain it'll have ba chilling effect, though, just not as much as my first comment suggested. FRAND patents have just become less powerful, and thus, less attractive - just not as much as I thought in my first comment.

It is also still ridiculous that a company like Apple has not paid Samsung a single dime for the use of its FRAND patents these past years, and yet, Samsung is ordered to pay a huge sum for a few ridiculous design and software patents. That's not very conducive to innovation - and this FTC settlement has only strengthened that silliness instead of counter it. Arguing that's a good thing is Apple-focussed instead of consumer-focussed.

Edited 2013-01-03 23:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Your mistake was ever thinking that standards patents were powerful. They have always been less powerful than non-SEPs. I don't understand how (again) the pro-Google, anti-Apple, anti-patent crowd could ever fool themselves into believing otherwise. It is very clear to the rest that something that must be offered to all comers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms would be less powerful than something that can be unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory. This is simple logic.

Nothing was weakened today but the already thin bubble some delusional folks have cloaked themselves in.

It's ridiculous that Samsung violated Apple's patents for 3 years without any right to do so, never mind without paying them. I think it's far, far, far, far less ridiculous that Samsung hasn't been paid for something that they were demanding a price an order or magnitude greater than what they deserved, for something they pledged they would never deny access to, when Apple has again and again pledged to ultimately pay them a fair rate for what can be determined to be valid and standard essential patents.

Again, let's raise another example. Nokia sued Apple for SEPs and there was not a single peep. Why? Because they didn't ask for an injunction. They didn't demand an absurd rate that no one else is paying.

I don't see anything particularly pro-Apple about supporting the logical interpretation of what FRAND SEPs should be. (Again, I was perfectly fine with Nokia's conduct during its SEP litigation with Apple, and perfectly fine with the end result as well.)

Edited 2013-01-04 00:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple has never said it doesn't want to pay for Samsung's SEPs. It only wishes to have the right to appeal any court determined FRAND rate if it is in excess of what it believes to be reasonable.

Microsoft on the other hand has agreed to be bound by whatever the court decides.

It is also worth noting that Samsung/Moto is still opposed to the courts having a say at all. They just wanted stipulations which were not favorable to Apple/MSFT in the event that the Judge ruled in favor of Apple on setting FRAND rates anyway.

Edited 2013-01-04 00:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2