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
Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering!
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 07:38 PM EST
Please provide a link to any FRAND abuse.

Thanks.

If not, stop. Do not pass Go. Do not
collect $200.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 09:56 AM EST
I think you need to realise that not everyone is a lawyer
here, nor has time and experience to follow up on
loosely referenced lawsuits in unnamed fora.

In other words, if you have the information already,
providing specifics to save others from having to redo
part of the information gathering would be a good tactic
in starting a discussion. helping others to focus on your
argument rather than on what isn't provided.

I do agree that allowing FRAND licenced patents in
standards can be a troublesome prospect, especially for
standards that don't need harware to be implemented.

But for hardware that is being made to a certain spec.,
as developed by the patent holder, I don't think it
needs to be such a big problem, as long as the FRAND
license is kept actually FR, which does indeed need
watching.

Hardware manufacturing already means having to
price,order, assemble and test, and verify the validity of
the result - one step of the parts aquiring can easily be
a legal discussion about the pricing, including FRAND
patents belonging with standards the part(s) use.

The bigger issue therefore are clearly in the domain of
intangible patents, like process and software patents,
especially because they can be unwittingly incorporated
into free/open software where a clear path to obtain
licenses is not at all present, creating a legal minefield.

That said, I haven't looked up your references, because
from the information you gave, I didn't see the direct
relevance to the current case. Sorry.

bosyber

[ 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 )