|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 03:41 PM EST |
I believe, and I may be wrong, that the 'trade secrets' they are trying to
protect is how much (and on what other terms) they licensed there patents out
for. A reasonable thing to want to protect from their point of view as having
that information made public would probably hurt them in future negotiations to
license the same patents.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST |
| Sure it is interesting to know what those deals are, but
that is totally
irrelevant to the case. Groklaw clearly
emphases the need to focus on the
issues involved and not
get sidetracked. The problem is that the Judge also
already
decided that he can set prices without any basis.
This is a
waste of tax payer money because all of these
extra motions that should not be
needed. It also makes it
harder to follow the case.
The Judge is causing
negative public value because all
these other companies have now pay expensive
lawyers. That
results in we, the consumer, have to repay that and
future expenses. Then we have to pay for the
new deals including
the development of those deals.
On top of that, any new patents must have a
higher price tag
so minimize future costs and maximize profits.
The idea
behind FRAND is great as it requires all companies
involved to work together to
make these products available
to the consumer. Implementation is a very
different issue.
Due to cross-licensing needs, each company has a vested
interest in minimizing costs as there is a limit that
consumers will pay.
The
problem here is are the outside companies that have
little or no useful
technology. As there is nothing to
trade, the costs will be high which of
course those outside
companies do not like. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
