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
my take on it | 264 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
my take on it
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 09:17 AM EST
Do you actually bother to read what you quote or are you so up yourself that you have a blind spot when it comes to something which ruins your argument?

Can an injunction be sought in for a FRAND patent? At least one court, that I happen to agree with, has emphatically said no. "To begin with Motorola's injunctive claim, I don't see how, given FRAND, I would be justified in enjoining Apple from infringing the ′898 unless Apple refuses to pay a royalty that meets the FRAND requirement. By committing to license its patents on FRAND terms, Motorola committed to license the ′898 to anyone willing to pay a FRAND royalty and thus implicitly acknowledged that a royalty is adequate compensation for a license to use that patent. How could it do otherwise? How could it be permitted to enjoin Apple from using an invention that it contends Apple must use if it wants to make a cell phone with UMTS telecommunications capability—without which it would not be a cell phone."
I'll repeat a certain portion of what you posted and highlight, for emphasis, what you appear to be missing.

"To begin with Motorola's injunctive claim, I don't see how, given FRAND, I would be justified in enjoining Apple from infringing the ′898 unless Apple refuses to pay a royalty that meets the FRAND requirement.
Apple, in it's filing in Wisconsin said
D. Although It Is Not So Obligated, Apple Is Willing To Pay the FRAND Rate of Not More Than $1 Per Unit Going Forward

Apple has publicly spoken about the necessity for setting a rational and reciprocal framework for assessing the FRAND rate on wireless declared standards-essential portfolios. In fact, Apple has been a leader in adhering to FRAND policies for licensing cellular standards-essential patents on rates proportional to the share of standards patents and on common bases that actually embody the standardized technology. Apple’s litigation conduct has been fully consistent with its public statements regarding the proper approach to evaluating the FRAND rate. And as an industry leader, Apple conducts itself responsibly and owns up to its own public statements.

Although Apple does not believe that Motorola may now seek an order compelling Apple to pay the rate this Court sets, Apple would be willing to pay a Court-ordered FRAND rate of less than or equal to $1 per covered product on the going-forward basis. This is the rate that Apple believes is appropriate in these circumstances for Motorola’s portfolio of cellular and WiFi essential patents. It is also consistent with the reasoned framework Apple has publicly articulated, and the only rate that can be supported by the evidence at this trial. Because neither party is asking this Court to draft a fully executable cross-license with all the necessary terms, Apple does expect that further negotiation will need to take place before the parties actually come to an agreement, covering topics such as the FRAND value of Apple’s cross-license, the role of Apple’s existing license to Motorola’s portfolio through Qualcomm, and the treatment of past sales.

To me the above implies that one of these statements is true. Which one?:
    a) Apple is willing to pay a FRAND rate, as determined by an independent 3rd party
    b) Apple is refusing to pay a FRAND rate, as determined by an independent 3rd party (unless certain conditions are met).
Apple is the entity in this case with Motorola, and in the case with Samsung, which is is abusing the SEP/FRAND licensing process (and also the courts).

IANAL and I'm only a poor programmer so these patents look rather silly to me and appear mostly to be about software rather than hardware - perhaps I'm misunderstanding what they're supposed to do - so for them to be patents seems absurd to me. I don't like FRAND as it is exclusionary but I understand why it exists - I'm an accountant and I understand the business reasons behind it.

Business is business and if you choose to refuse to pay then there should be consequences such as being refused a licence or having your licence revoked whether the patent is SEP or not. Your comments about the "weaponization of FRAND patents" are really rather silly. They're patents - a legal monopoly which can be protected by going to court. They're already weaponized.

Are you a lawyer? If so, after the arguments that you've come out with I wouldn't use you if I had a parking fine and you offered to represent me for free.

You certainly aren't as clever as you think you are. If you do anymore handwaving it's possible that you'll take off. Go somewhere else to flap, you're causing a draft and it doesn't appear that you've put any deoderant on.

j

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • 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
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 )