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
Huh? | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Huh?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT
>"Samsung already has agreed to license their FRAND patents, why should
they
have to give them away to their competitors who concentrated on non-standard
patents?"

> Nobody is being required to 'give away' anything.

What do you call it when Apple insists it has a right to use Samsung's
standard-related FRAND patents without paying anything for using them? And
refuses to talk to Samsung about any agreement to use the patents? And goes to
court about it? And seems to get away with that? Oh, and manages to get a
billion dollar judgment for Samsung's "slavish copying" of rectangular
devices with rounded corners which have public-domain icons on the screen.

What do you call it when Microsoft insists it has a right to use Motorola's
standards-essential FRAND patents without paying anything for using them? And
refuses to talk to Motorola about any agreement to use the patents? And goes to
court about it? And gets a court in the US to enjoin a decision of a court in
Germany from taking effect? And gets away with that? Oh, and seems to be able to
strong-arm several companies which produce phones to license patents from them
which nobody can even say what those patents are.

The way it looks to me is, Samsung and Motorola certainly are asked to
"give something away." If they aren't then what is it, exactly?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
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 )