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: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 08:03 PM EST
First, I have identified what I think is "FRAND abuse" (which consists
of two
actions- either seeking an injunction for a FRAND patents, which I don't
believe should be allowed by law, since the applicable standards for
injunctions wouldn't cover it when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would
suffice; second, cutting off, refusing to license, or bargaining in bad faith in

anticipation of litigation or due to collateral litigation).

Second, I have postulated that this "FRAND abuse" started with the
manufacturers of Android devices as part of an offensive/defensive litigation
posture due to litigation by Apple, MS, Nokia, and others.

Third, it is my belief that now that this theory has been tested in the courts,
it
is being used by other parties.

Now, you ask for evidence of these claims.

The first is self-evident. The Posner opinion many of you enjoy citing speaks
to this. For that matter, so does the case mentioned upthread (which also
supports points three).

Samsung's actions have been detailed in, inter alia, the Ericsson litigation in

E.D. Tex. (yes, that district). Ericsson (if you read their complaints- see
Pacer
6:2012cv00895, 6:2012cv00894 E. D. Tex.) alleges that Samsung is
attempting to leverage a FRAND patents (SEP) to force Ericsson to license
non-encumbered patents to them. Hmmm.... where have we seen that before?

And so we could keep going on. I would add that there are also two major
anti-trust investigations in the United States, one by the EU, and assorted
ones across the Pacific. Admittedly, those are just "investigations",
but
government work, it takes a while.

Seriously- I can understand someone saying that they think that FRAND
patents should be weaponized like this (although I am a little surprised to see

it from you), but saying that there's no evidence? I honestly thought better of

the folks here.

Like I said- it's not about a team. I can say that business process patents are

wrong, or that software patents are (usually) overbroad and should be
invalidated, or that (IMO), many of Apple's patents shouldn't survive, but it's

important to call out the truth in litigation where you find it. (Unless you're
an
involved party)

[ 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 )