|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:23 PM EST |
I apologize, and I don't mean to be harsh, but I honestly
assume good faith and a lack of... denseness on the ability
of readers. I assume a working knowledge of IP and patent
law, or at least a background sufficient to understand basic
treatises like Nimmer. I would normally expect someone to
read and understand a court filing like RealTek and
understand why it applies, so that I wouldn't have to go
through the whole "in the past, it was assumed that
injunction could not issue from a FRAND patent etc.". I
would assume that the never-before started investigations by
*every major* anti-trust authority in the world would be
some sort of evidence. Or reading through the "other parts"
of opinion which are so regularly cited on this and other
webcites (such as Posner). There are basic issues in the
law.
Again, if you're interested in this from the POV of a
regular consumer (as opposed to a partisan), the trend
toward litigating FRAND patents is a very, very bad one.
But I will try one last time to explain this to you.
This is how this type of litigation (between large, sophisticated tech
companies) works-
A and B size each other up, and start hurling their piles of
patents at each other. The rule of thumb is, he with the
bigger pile of patents wins. They keep doing this until
eventually, they reach an agreement. This happens *all the
time* (see, for example, Nokia and Apple).
Same thing here. Main difference is that there was a greater
disparity in unencumbered patents. So the QE strategy has
been to weaponize the encumbered patents (and/or come up
with other novel theories, like assigning patents). How? By
refusing to license them on fair and non-discriminatory
rates (aka the same as others). Then demanding an
injunction.
Personally, I think it's a bad idea as a matter of law, and
any short-term gains will come at long-term anti-trust
losses. But I am singularly amazed that people who are
generally anti-(current IP) patent regime so easily excuse
this.
Put another way- Red Sox are awesome; Yankees suck. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Ummmm, yeah... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:40 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:44 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:31 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:38 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 08:03 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:50 PM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:56 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 11:15 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 06:22 PM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: yacc on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 08:19 AM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 01:32 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 09:56 AM EST
- Given you quoted Posner: do you consider the standard Judicial process extreme? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:36 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:43 PM EST
- my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:54 PM EST
- my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 08:43 PM EST
- my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 09:17 AM EST
- my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 11:03 AM EST
- my take on it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 12:44 PM EST
- ... that you are an idiot - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 09:03 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 09:53 PM EST
- Investigation != evience - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 04:49 AM EST
|
|
|
|