Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Pay and Pay and Pay again | 276 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Pay and Pay and Pay again

Authored by: deck2 on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 11:24 AM EDT

This appears, though I cannot see the compaliant, to be a suit about the
inclusion of a part which required patents to be licensed being used in a
downstream device. It is distrubing that the owner of a patent for something in
a manufactured part that is used in a more complex device can extract individual
royalties all the way to the final user. To use a car analogy, if someone has a
patent on part of the engine not only does the manufacturer of the car have to
pay a royalty but the dealer and the end user should have to pay separate
royalties under this view of things. The initial inclusion of the technology
should be the only level where a royalty is due. This is just a grand extortion
scheme that some people attempt.

And the manufacturer that pays the royalty should also be at fault for not
ensuring that the downstream users are not required to pay royalties.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Patent exhaustion - Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- Patent exhaustion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 05:45 PM EDT
  - Because MPEG-LA writes the license to take that into account - Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, July 26 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT
- Patent exhaustion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 25 2012 @ 09:53 PM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )