|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
Apple had a point that should be applied to rounded corners?
Sorry, couldn't resist.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
I have a suggestion.
FRAND:
Gratis for software that is licenced under the GNU GPL 2.0, GNU GPL 3.0, or a
license that is deemed compatible to either of those licenses by the Free
Software Foundation, Open Source Foundation, and Debian Legal Mailing list.
All other software pays US$100 per patent per installation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 08:37 PM EDT |
Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory
This is pure PR BS. None of these terms have any specific meaning. In wireless
tech, the "FRAND" license requires users to negotiate use. How is
this different than having no FRAND license?
Since you are required to negotiate, the patent holder is free to discriminate
against you or for you based the how big a company you are or if you are a
significant competitor. Does this then mandate discrimination?
Neither fair nor reasonable mean anything. Fair in what sense? Reasonable by
what measure. The requirement to negotiate puts the lie to all of the lofty
concepts. Where does any FRAND license spell out your exact rights? If you
know what they are then why negotiate?
I think that fair use should mean that a patent holder can not prevent someone
from using a patent. Any patent. A holder of a patent is entitled to
compensation but I do accept that a patent holder can use the privilege of a
patent to stop people from using the ideas. Patents (and copyrights) are not
real rights, they are privileges handed out by governments.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Declaration - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 03:57 AM EDT
- Declaration - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 09:16 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
