decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Patent license | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Patent license
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 | # ]

Patent license
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 | # ]

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 )