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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
would anyone contribute then? | 98 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
would anyone contribute then?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 08:03 PM EST
You gave a nice set of arguments for why paying for
standards doesn't work, in many ways they are correct.
However you didn't give any reason for publically traded
companies to contribute to these standards. Yes IBM giving
away the PC was great, but there was an advantage to that,
more parts that would work together creating, giving them
access to better parts to build their computers, improving
there general product, which gave them a bigger customer
base they could sell things to and so on. What incentive
would there be to give away the patents on LTE 4G? Or at
least what incentive would there be to give it away to
anyone but you allies in the smart phone wars? Which you
could do without making it a standard probably if you were
careful.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

IBM *allowed* everyone to clone the PC?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 12:01 AM EST
That's not the way I remember learning that history.

Couldn't stop them is more the way I understand it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

would anyone contribute then?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 12:08 AM EST
No, the standard says that all two by fours must be of a certain size (WxHxL),
should be of a certain family of woods, they must all contain a certain
percentage of moisture to be used in framing a house, they may not contain flaws
that exceed certain dimensions, etc.

Some "company", after much testing of construction materials at their
expense, set the "standard" for construction materials that all follow
- any two by four that is sold commercially for construction use is the same as
any other two by four sold for the same purpose - that's a standard.

It does not say that they have to be from the same company; if it did, then the
"standard" will not be used by others, and a new "standard"
would have to be devised on different IP that did not conflict with the original
patents.

Said "company", having spent much on research and development, is
certainly entitled to be compensated for the work they have done in setting the
"standard" (that others have agreed IS the standard to be used). What
FRAND is is a commitment to keep the playing field reasonably level, that is,
not to "freeze out" any company that wants to use the standard - to
negotiate "in good faith" a "reasonable royalty" (not
necessarily the same royalty) with each entity who wishes to "play" in
the area that requires the use of the "standard".

Or are you just a Microsoft Troll?

[ 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 )