|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
Apple IS being "strange and unusual".
Standard procedure is to say "we have patents that we will licence as
FRAND". That's what Samsung did. More to the point, Samsung then did as
they said they would, and offered Apple a FRAND licence!
What Apple are arguing is that because Samsung did not disclose, in detail, and
up front, what patents would be covered by their FRAND declaration, they lost
their right to ask for a FRAND licence.
Apple are (a) being unreasonable by asking for information they have no need to
know, ie what patents they are covered for (any implementation of the standard
is covered, the individual patents are irrelevant), and (b) are being
unreasonable by asking for information that Samsung itself probably doesn't
consciously know!
At the end of the day, all Apple needs is "a FRAND licence to the
standards-essential patents". Any further detail is irrelevant. But Apple
is saying that that missing - *unnecessary* - detail invalidates the agreement
by its absence.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Tkilgore on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Tkilgore on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT
- 1973Ex15 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 20 2012 @ 10:21 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
