|
|
|
| Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 11:06 AM EST |
To be fair, there has to be some punitive response to MS' failure to follow the
contractually-stipulated process, but let's get to the FRAND pricing first. MS
doesn't want to negotiate? Fine, we can keep them from having to negotiate and
give Samsung a break, too. I'm sure that MS has negotiated for FRAND licensing
on standards-essential patents in the past. If they are so averse to the
negotiating process, then let's take the top price they pay on one of these
deals and apply that fee to <b>future</b> item sales. As an
alternate plan, if MS has not paid a fee but used cross-licensing agreements,
then the set rate can be the top FRAND fee that Samsung currently receives.
There, now that the future sales are addressed, let's look at the past, where MS
willfully infringed. Take the fee from above and apply treble damages to past
sales. Since Samsung's attorneys probably didn't work for free, and since MS
could have avoided all of this by actually following protocol, attorney fees
should be trebly multiplied and awarded to Samsung as well.
After thinking and rethinking, I honestly believe that this is fair.
Regards,
mc[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
