The title of this post is what I believe your stated position to
be.
Short version: We do not disagree that SEP's can be abused. It's
only the scope of the abuse that we disagree upon. As I understand your
position:
100% of SEP's are abuse!
My position:
You can't prove
that and it's inappropriate to automatically assume that! That assumes "guilty
till proven innocent" which I will never accept as a civilized position.
To
change my position on that:
You will have to convince me that the tool = the
abuse to which it can be put!
However, while you're deciding on how to word
your reasons I present the following for you to keep in mind, placed in the
context of your own equation:
A car (tool) can be used to murder, therefore,
a car is murder.
If you had said: SEP can be abused, or SEP can be too
easily abused, I wouldn't have responded because I agree with those two versions
of the statement. Remember, we don't disagree on the fact SEP's can be abused -
just on the scope.
Is a patent that has been granted on functionality
that is required for a standard abuse?
I can see how it can easily be
abused. However, I can also see a scenario where it is not abused.
Given
the scenario:
A patent is granted on an invention.
A standards body
views said invention with such value that they decide to implement it as a
standard.
They negotiate with the patent owner and the patent owner
agrees to a compensation of 1 cent per device.
The devices sell from
various companies at rates between $5 and $12.
I do not hold the
view that such a scenario is abuse. Abuse being defined as:
Use (something)
to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
Is this situation theoretical?
To the best of my knowledge it is. Is the situation you are describing
theoretical? To the best of my knowledge it is. This is an assumption however
because you haven't actually provided the situation you are voicing your opinion
on.
In both cases we have put forth our end-position. In this instance I
have placed into the picture a situation which - in my humble opinion, and
that's all we've got at the moment, opinion - can not be viewed as
abuse.
This, I present as evidence as to why one should not automatically
assume an SEP is abuse. You have asked for direct evidence:
If you can come
up with another essential patent type that is not intended for abuse, I will
rethink my post.
However, you have not supplied anything to support your
position that an SEP = abuse. I have shown that I can view the potential for
abuse - if you need a scenario as an example I can easily provide one. I have
also shown that I can view the potential for reasonable use.
To answer
the question:
Is there any SEP that is not being abused?
I can't. And
I don't believe you can either - answer the opposite that is:
Are all SEP's
being abused?
In order to do so, we would require having inside knowledge
of all situations in their entirety. I don't have the inside knowledge to that
extent in the company I've been employeed with for the last 14 years let alone
every entity that owns a patent anywhere in the world that has been implemented
into a standard anywhere.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
