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 547167
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Of course, but the discrepancy is simply too large - you, too, have to admit that, right, despite your pro-Apple stance? Or do you think it's beneficial to innovation that rounded corners and crazy software patents can block entire products and lead to billions of dollars in damages, while Apple can just freely take whatever it wants from Samsung's FRAND patents without having to pay a dime - for years now?

Is that fair? Is that beneficial to innovation?

Edited 2013-01-04 00:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Nokia sued Apple for SEPs and there was not a single peep.


Not really. There were a lot of peeps. It wasn't until Microsoft stepped in that things got settled. Nokia wanted access to Apple's patents in a cross-licensing deal, but Apple refused.

Edited 2013-01-04 00:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

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