if people find the FRAND too expensive they can always use their
This view is just wrong.
FRAND should always be
negotiated in good faith and be done in a Fair Reasonable And Non Discriminatory
manner, hence the royalties should be somewhat consistent between all players in
an industry. In this way the FRAND standards essential patents should never be
too expensive and should allow one and all to make a fair profit developing
products using these standards (for which they negotiate a royalty with the
patent holders for the rights to use the technology before selling their
Only if one has tried and failed to negotiate in good faith
should one end up in civil proceedings. The courts should not be the first
avenue when the standards essential patent holders attempt to negotiate an
agreement (and obviously one should not have been selling products for years
using this standards essential technology without having an agreement).
this is the crux of the issue, Apple did not want to negotiate in any way. They
wanted access to the standards essential patents and just decided to used it.
Apple didn't want to pay anything much less pay what others were paying under
their FRAND agreements. There was no attempt to negotiate whatsoever as Apple
went directly to the litigation route wanting the court to define a very low
royalty rate, in essence defining what is fair and reasonable without Apple
having attempted a negotiation. Having the court define a low royalty rate would
then free Apple to use their non-essential patents to quash any competition as
Apple itself stated they would never license some of their patents (as they are
too valuable to be compensated by $).
So its not a matter of using some
other technology if one doesn't like the price of some standard essential
patents (that other players have had no issue with). Its about negotiating in
good faith which Apple just does not want to do. It's about paying for the
patents you use in your product which Apple does not want to do.
preference is to use the courts to make FRAND = FREE and then use its non
standard essential patents and trade dress IP to limit a competitors ability to
play in the field these competitors actually created!
After all this
litigation settles, I hope Apple will be remembered for trying to 'SWIPE' the
industry but the gesture that is more likely to be associated with Apple is one
that is seen out the window of a vehicle during a road rage incident.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]