|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 03:02 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. They did, however, agree to
license the patents on Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms to all
comers. There was no such agreement for the patents not involved in the
standard, so there's no (rational) expectation that they should be handled the
same way.
Here's a short version of why they agreed to the FRAND terms for their patents:
International standards, especially communication standards, are widely
implemented. This wide implementation means *lots* of licensees and licenses.
Without agreeing to the FRAND terms, the technology in question wouldn't have
been included in the standard, and likely would have seen virtually *no*
implementations, licensees, or licenses.
So, in exchange for promising Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms, the
patent holder essentially gets set up to have dozens to hundreds (or even
thousands) of licenses.
Without being included in the standard, you might get fees of 10-20%, *IF* you
can convince anyone to use your tech in the first place. With inclusion in the
standard, you might get fees of 1-2%, but you'll have several orders of
magnitude more units on which to collect those fees. This adds up to more
license fees.
FRAND licensing is the 'cost' of being included in these standards, which more
than pays for itself by virtue of providing a large market of implementers who
have to license your patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 04:54 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:33 PM EDT
- Standards essential ?? - Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT
- Patent exhaustion - Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 08:55 PM EDT
- 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
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
When a technology is incorporated into a standard, it is essentially guaranteed
widespread use in exchange for the inventor's agreement to license it under
FRAND terms.
The inventor gives up the exercise of their right to control who may license or
to charge exorbitant fees in exchange for quantity of licenses at reasonable
fees.
Generally, a standard is created when there is a choice of how to do things.
Being part of the standard ensures the technology is used and licensed.
Technologies not included in the standard don't get used.
Its not an altruistic decision to 'contribute' a technology to the standard.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
