|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 04:33 AM EST |
This seems correct. FRAND patents have promised to licence themselves so
injunctions are not appropriate. There are two evils that have to be balanced:
one, the evil of a patent being included in a standard under a FRAND promise
which the patent holder then tries to use to gouge people who rely on the
standard and the promise (remember Rambus); vs two, the patent user who does
not pay the patent holder for use of the patent because without an injunction
remedy the patent holder is in a weak bargaining position. Solving this problem
is not trivial. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JK Finn on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 04:40 AM EST |
IANAL and so forth.
The injunction ensures that the patent
owner can
maitain an exclusive monopoly, or can pick and choose
amongst
licensees. But a FRAND commitment represents an
undertaking to license the
patent, and thereby demonstrates
that monetary damages for past infringement
and future
licensing revenues constitute remedies available at common
law that
are sufficient to remedy any harm caused to the
patent.
As far
as I can tell, the commitment represents an
undertaking to negotiate a
licence to the patent with
anyone willing to enter such negotiations. The
promise is
not to license to anyone, it is to negotiate a licence with
anyone.
When the prospective licensee refuses to even enter the
negotiations, wouldn't this be enough to show that any
valuation of past
damages and future licensing revenues is
in dispute and thus cannot be claimed
to constitute a
remedy?
JK Finn [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- FRAND commitment - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 09:56 PM EST
|
|
|
|
