|
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
Or, equally likely, Apple's looking at the rates paid by others in the
industry (considerably less than 2-odd percent in cash) and wanting those same
rates. Except that those other companies have their own patents and get those
low rates by "paying" with cross-licensing. Apple has plenty of patents to
cross-license, but they want all the cash coming in to them (like they're used
to for their products) without them having to give anything to anyone else. They
don't want to cross-license (because that'd mean giving up some of their
precious patent revenue opportunities) and they don't want to pay cash (because
that means cash flowing out, not in), so they're trying to cry about it and get
sympathy while only telling half the story. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
That may be true for the most part, only trolls don't need cross licensing
deals, unless of course they get the right to sue using your patent as
well.
The courts fortunately blew that out of the water with Copyright, but
patents may or may not be able to be sub-licensed in a similar way (e.g. sell
only the rights to sue, and keep the patent/license to mfg for oneself). Heaven
help us with the trolls get that kind of licensing model figured out.
--- The Investors IP Law: The future health of a Corporation is
measured as the inverse of the number of IP lawsuits they are currently
litigating. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|