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 @ 07:57 PM EDT
> I guess you missed that Apple VS Samsung trial.

(!)

> Intel makes a $10 cellular chip with patents that they licensed from
Samsung.

> Apple buys the $10 chip from Intel which carries the license onward...

Are you sure about that? I mean, the "carries the license onward"
part? Sure, Apple said something like that in court and in lots of press
releases. The problem is, one can not be sure whether the facts were observed
and the law was actually applied in that courtroom, or not. Sorry to say.

> Samsung cant ask Apple for money also since Intel already paid the
licensing fee.

> It's called patent exhaustion and Samsung and Moto are trying to circumvent
it.

Who actually knows whether or not the doctrine of patent exhaustion truly
applies in this particular case? The matter might well not be quite so cut and
dried, and might depend very much on some fine print. For example, Intel might
not have been licensed to do exactly the same thing which Apple was asked to
license. Also, I understand that many other companies actually did license
Samsung's patents without complaint. That could be relevant, too. Samsung's side
of the story remained essentially unheard, after all, during the trial. Are you
absolutely and positively sure that you have an informed opinion about the
matter?

My personal likes or dislikes for FRAND licensing for standards-essential
patents, and my likes or dislikes for patents in general have nothing do do with
my observation that both Apple and Microsoft want to have special rules which
apply just to them. Those desires are nakedly obvious. Yes, indeed they do want
something for nothing and if it is at the expense of Samsung or Motorola then so
much the better for them. Or is it so obvious that a "trade dress
patent" on a rectangular device with rounded corners is so worthy, also the
arrangement of icons in a rectangular grid on a screen, or patents on
"slide to unlock" and other, similar nonsense are worth a billion
dollars?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Patent exhaustion
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 08:55 PM EDT

My understanding was that Apple bought an Intel fabbed processor chip. After
they were sued, they noted that Intel did have a proper license to the patent.
They "hung their hat" on that license.

An imperfect analogy would be noting that Intel has a corporate license to
Microsoft Windows, and then claiming that you don't need to purchase a license
because your computer has an Intel processor.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Patent exhaustion - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 01:30 AM EDT
  • Patent exhaustion - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 09:49 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 )