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 | # ]
|