|
Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT |
They get the terms from the patent-holder's agreement with the standards
body, where the patent-holder agreed that they would negotiate FRAND terms in
return for their patents being included in the standard. So at that point it
isn't whether the patent-holder will agree to terms, it's down to pretty much
just what the royalty rates and terms will be. So assuming that the licensee is
willing to entertain offers, the courts are just taking the position that
there's no need to act as if no license was negotiated unless negotiations fail
and it's impossible for the court to impose reasonable terms as part of a
ruling.
Note that Apple's running a risk here by forcing the issue into
court: the court may accept Samsung's argument that everybody else has
agreed that certain terms are reasonable, so if Apple won't agree to any other
terms then the standard terms everybody else agreed to should be imposed. I'm
sure Apple will argue, but they may have a hard time convincing the appeals
court that it's reasonable to impose terms significantly better than what
everybody else has negotiated. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
Although I suspect that if Trading Standards found out, they would get very
upset very quick. Unless of course it really was a mistake and the guy forgot to
put an extra 9 in, as in £2249.99 (and did put it in as soon as he found out).
Otherwise, it's a fraudulent invitation. And you can get done for it. I should
have reported Argos for that a while back ... (actually, I think it's illegal to
sell at a higher price - you WILL get done for that if someone complains!).
That's why it's so tricky for websites that accidentally put things up at too
low a price - legally they either have to sell at the advertised price, or say
"sorry, wrong price, no deal (at any price)".
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|