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
when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 11:15 AM EST
You really aren't helping the case you are making.

1) You keep making assertions without actually citing
anything. Telling others to go find evidence doesn't work.
You're the one making the assertions. It's like saying "it's
well known that..." and not citing 1 thing.

2) Claiming others are biased because they don't hold your
view.

3) FRAND doesn't depend on a party agreeing that they are
reasonable. The industry has set the general terms, and they
are supposed to be negotiated. Apple has demonstrated no
desire to negotiate. See Judge Crabb's dismissal in Apple v.
Moto.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 06:22 PM EST
Let's kill this "Samsung aren't offering FRAND" stone dead.

Samsung said to Apple "our standard rate is 2.5%". What's NOT
"non-discriminatory" about offering EVERYONE the same rate?

What Apple should have done is come back and say "let's negotiate".
What they did do was run screaming to the court and say "they've offered us
the same starting offer they offer everyone else. That's unfair!
WAAAAHHHHH!!!".

At the end of the day, FRAND is all about negotiating. Apple have behaved like a
spoilt brat and refused to negotiate. Any FRAND abuse is by Apple - Samsung
haven't really had any opportunity to be abusive ...

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice
Authored by: yacc on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 08:19 AM EST
Well, define FRAND terms. Please consider that all these
players have all kind of patent pools that they cross
license => Basically many if not most patents don't have a
market-going price.

Beyond the FRAND status, one has to look at the patents
involved. FRAND patents tend to be these problematic patents
where even most patent abolitionists admit that they
(might) have merit. Now Apple wants these "serious" patents
for less than $1/device, at the same time expecting double
digit rates for their (mostly) trivial (as in "perfect
examples what is broken with the patent system") patents.

So please define FRAND.

And notice, that as far as the public knows, Apple has
declined to enter serious negotiation about the tons of
patents they are stealing all the time. (GSM, UMTS, MPEG,
LTE, ... are all standards that require patent licenses to
implement.)

Put simply, if you seriously negotiate, than yes,
injunctions are not relevant, but then I don't think that
most courts would allow injunctions if negotiations are in
progress anyway. OTOH, if some newcomer comes to the table
and wants to use your technology and not pay for it, but
instead it will decide itself how much to tip the help, than
it's understandable that the guys that invested heavily in
R&D over decades are pissed. And then the same newcomer
claims that their trivia is much more worth than your decade
old R&D work? That's a behavior that calls for painful
answers, so yes, I think a couple of months of a sale ban of
all iDevices with mobile radios would be helpful to improve
the behavior of the spoilt brat.

[ 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 )