|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 11:40 AM EST |
I'm not sure if a sliding scale as you describe it makes sense. How deep the
pockets of the company is shouldn't dictate the rate. I believe its more about
finding a rate that is in line with the value of the patented technology as it
relates to the infringing product.
This is the tricky part.. If your product supports upscaling and playing
interlaced video files on a progressive display, what percentage of your profits
are associated with that piece? If some of your customers only watch such
files, it could be worth a large percentage.
Is it fair to implement a patented technology like this, refuse to license it,
perform analysis of actual use patterns of your customers, and then make the
courts force you to pay only the part the patent holder can prove took advantage
of the functionality? Essentially reversing the process - using the courts to
enact a pay-only-what-your-customers-use policy as opposed to negotiating at the
start.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, January 09 2013 @ 02:03 PM EST |
That'd be kind of a yes-and-no answer there. Yes, they have to ask roughly
the same total value in exchange for the license. No, they don't have to charge
the same rate, because part of the value may not be in money. If Motorola's
negotiating with say Nokia, Nokia may respond to the initial 2.25% offer with
"no money, but we'll license you to use Nokia patents in your equipment at no
cost". And if Nokia has a lot of patents that Motorola would like to have access
to, they may end up coming to a deal that has Nokia paying little or nothing in
cash. But if a company like Microsoft comes along with few or no patents
Motorola's interested in, they may end up having to pay 2% in cash because they
aren't bringing the non-cash value to the table that Nokia did. And that's
entirely allowable. The F in FRAND stands for "fair" after all:
- F -
Fair. The total value given over in return for the patent license is
commensurate to the value of the patent license. It's not low-balled so much
that the patent-holder's being cheated out of what their property's
worth.
- R - Reasonable. The total value given over in return for the
patent license isn't so high that it'd bankrupt the licensee or make it
impossible for them to make a product at a price that'd sell.
- ND -
Non-discriminatory. The patent-holder doesn't treat parties differently. Whether
you're their best friend or their bitterest rival, they'll evaluate the deal
using the same criteria and accept roughly the same total value. That doesn't
mean the terms will be absolutely identical, but they'll vary based only on the
different types of value you're offering and not on who you are.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
