|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
Being sued for doing something wrong doesn't release you from any other
obligations you've willingly taken on.
Contributing patented technology to a FRAND-obligated standard means you've
reduced your ability to use that patent as a weapon, yes. However, you've done
that *knowingly* in exchange for the fact that the standard will cause many more
people to have to license your patent.
Let me give you a scenario that might point out the flaw in your reasoning as
I've understood it...
- - - - -
Party A has a great new device X they want to introduce to the market. Device X
will rely on a FRAND-obligated standard which includes technology W patented by
Party B.
Party A enters into negotiations with Party B, and releases it's device onto the
market. (Everything is fine here, this is how it normally happens.)
Party B sees the great new device (which, incidentally, contains technology Y
patented by Party A). Party B develops and releases a new device Z which uses
technology Y.
Party A finds out about device Z, which includes their patented technology, and
sues to protect their patent rights. Party B counter-sues using the technology
W patents as leverage.
If Party A suing Party B over misappropriation of their patented technology
allows Party B to sue Party A over the patents they contributed to a
FRAND-obligated standard, then the simple act of *having* patents contributed to
a FRAND-obligated standard means no one who wants to enter that market can ever
sue you over misappropriating any of their patents.
A FRAND-obligated patent shouldn't be able to be used as a *shield* against your
own bad actions. (Neither should a non-FRAND-obligated patent.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
