Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

re:FRAND | 224 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

re:FRAND

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 07:40 AM EST

Obviously that's what Apple thought they F stood for.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

re:FRAND

Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 05:10 PM EST

I think this has been somewhat of a shift in recent years.

Originally the phrase was RAND, after all why is Reasonable And Non
Discriminatory not also Fair. Generally this was taken to mean the royalty rate
should be low and the license should be available to all comers.

When I first heard of FRAND, I think it was using the F for Free as the license
carried no royalty and were also Reasonable and Non Discriminatory. Since a
Free (as in beer) license could also carry conditions which might not be
reasonable, for example a compulsory cross license of unrelated technology or a
one way requirement to share proprietary technology.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ 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 )