[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• Obvious trolling - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 08:53 AM EST
  • Obvious trolling - Authored by: rcsteiner on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 03:16 PM EST

It seems to me the grandfather/OP makes two arguable points, one of them interesting. The uninteresting (to me) point is that Google/Motorola and Samsung shouldn't renege on FRAND licensing commitments, which is AFAIK merely the Apple (and Microsoft) spin on SEP vs. non-SEP facts that will be litigated in due course.

The interesting point is that "patents are not property". Of course at first glance this is simply false. Patents can be bought and sold, so in themselves they are property. However I think the underlying notion is that patents do not represent ownership of the invention (much less of the idea embodied in the invention), but rather a right of monopoly on producing or licensing the invention.

I'm not convinced this sheds much light on the SEP vs. non- SEP FRAND obligations that form the rest of the argument, but I'd be happy to see more argument that demolishes the grand illusion of "intellectual property".

---
Recursion is the opprobrium of the mathists.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• Less obvious and more interesting than the average troll - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 05:02 PM EST