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 @ 10:06 PM EST
Samsung has used FRAND patents in a defensive manner. I don't
believe they have used them in anyway other than counter
claims. If you can cite one case in which they didn't use
them in a counter claim, please do. There is no reason that
Samsung should not be able to defend themselves with their
entire patent portfolio.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:50 PM EST
So you dont believe that injunctions should be allowed for
FRAND patents, so what exactly, would you say is the benefit
of having a patent in a FRAND pool then if anyone can abuse it
and nothing happens? Sounds like an illogical choice to make.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST
You STILL don't get it.

If Apple refuse to get a licence, and Samsung aren't allowed to get an
injunction, WHAT LEGAL REMEDY IS THERE?

THAT is your FRAND abuse - companies don't bother to get a licence, and the poor
victims, the patent owners, HAVE NO REMEDY AVAILABLE!

Apple and MS are the prime examples of this sort of abuse.

We really should stop feeding the troll ...

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering!
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 01:32 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
I'm going to address this statement one piece at a time:
seeking an injunction for a FRAND patents, which I don't believe should be allowed by law
It doesn't matter what you believe. The law states that injunctive relief is a valid result from SEP infringement.
cutting off, refusing to license, or bargaining in bad faith in
Can you show me where Motorola is "cutting off" "refusing to license" or "bargaining in bad faith" ?

because from what i can tell, after apple and ms were already using the patents in question, motorola started with an openning bid in an attempt to open negotiations. then apple and ms both decided not to negotiate, and instead took moto to court. Where in any of that does it say that moto was "cutting off", "refusing to license" or "bargaining in bad faith" with Apple or MS? Therefore, based on YOUR DEFINITION of what YOU THINK FRAND abuse is... Motorola's use of its SEPs does NOT fall under that category.

---
IANAL

[ 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 )