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
You don't fight with FRAND | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You don't fight with FRAND
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT
But what if a company refuses to accept the FRAND license, claiming its
unreasonable (without actually negotiating)?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I smell a troll!
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT

You speak the obvious, in the sense that patent abuse of any kind should not exist, but your comment totally negate's PJ's article, the very reason we are all gathered here today, and dismisses it as if fairness to Google is unimportant. You also conveniently overlook everything in my comment above, and focus with tunnel vision on FRAND patent fairness. You are being deliberately block-headed, and don't deserve a forum for your narrow vision here. Furthermore, your behaviour gives cause to question your motives.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You don't fight with FRAND
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:37 PM EDT
Wow, someone here has a brain and critical thinking skills.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You don't fight with FRAND
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 06:29 AM EDT
This is fair! There are advantages to having YOUR technology as part of a standard. You are essentially guaranteed widespread adoption and licensing of your technology
(My emphasis)

I think you have pointed out the flaw in your own reasoning. Motorola did not get its 'guaranteed' licensing of its technology. Once it became clear that Apple had no intention of initiating negotiations to use someone else's technology Motorola had to go to them and present an offer. Apple chose not to negotiate but to litigate.

Please explain to me how this is fair

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

No license, no implementing the standard
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 08:53 AM EDT
No matter what your amazing critical thinking skills tell you, if you don't
license the FRAND patents for a standard, you can not sell a device that
implements that standard.

Why doesn't Apple man up and negotiate for the license already? If they don't,
they shouldn't be so surprised that they can have their shiny new phone pulled
from the stores.

Amazingly, if they did license the patents then this side of the lawsuit would
disappear and they can refocus on their war against Google. Instead they just
complain to the courts that they want implement the standard without negotiating
for a license. Sounds like Apple is enjoying the same critical thinking skills
that you brag about possessing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )