|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 06:04 AM EDT |
You do know there's a "rest of the world", don't you? :)
Re: your simplified pooling - what happens if I happen to own half of the
patents in the pool, what's my discount? Do you value some patents more than
others? Some are indeed more essential than others, after all. How much cash
does a patent owner receive from someone who licenses the pool?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
Patents are not supposed to lock up all solutions to a
problem. They are supposed to reward a particularly
innovative specific solution to a problem. At least that was
the original idea.
If sanity prevailed, any patent that cannot be worked around
would be rejected as being overly broad.
Also, under the constitution, congress is only allowed to
grant patents that "promote the progress of science and the
useful arts". Evidence that a particular patent is
hindering progress in an industry ought to be a powerful
argument for its invalidation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 15 2013 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
The Google submission to the:
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Hearing on
OVERSIGHT OF THE IMPACT ON COMPETITION OF
EXCLUSION ORDERS TO ENFORCE
STANDARD-ESSENTIAL PATENTS
Beginning page 14 of aai- IP and
Standards, FINAL test. 7-9-12
I.THE DELICATE BALANCE OF STANDARD
SETTING
As the FTC has recognized, “[i]nteroperability standards
can create
enormous value for consumers by increasing
competition, innovation, product
quality and
choice.”1 They go on to examine what actually
happened
in
Europe vs US claiming this was directly due to early
adoption of 'Open
Standards'ETSI’s decision to
adopt the unified GSM standard in 1989
was responsible
for the rapid growth of the digital mobile network in
Europe.
The percentage of mobile
phone users using the digital network in Europe rose
from 4%
in 1992 to over 90% in
1998.4 By contrast, over the same period the
United States
did not adopt a unified
standard, and the growth of digital
mobile phone use
suffered as a result: digital mobile
phones began to be used
only in 1995, and in 1998 the
percentage of mobile phone
subscribers using
digital cellular phones was still below
30%. Moving on with the
history of this
development, they go on to give good descriptions
of what has
actually happened while acknowledging
theoretical dangers in the system. So far
these fears have
not materialised when the pragmatic success of the system
has
been dependent on the players being active participants,
with a need to
maintain good reputations for playing
fair, etc.. Google go on to
argue:It is no
accident
that the firms that are petitioning the
government to alter
that
successful status quo were not significant
participants in
the development of the
standards in question. To the contrary,
both Apple and
Microsoft are dominant
providers of proprietary operating
systems who have invested
little time and money in contributing cellular
standard
essential patents.13 Their clear incentive is to minimize
the amount
of money they pay to those who have invested
billions in building
open
telecommunication protocols while maximizing the amount they
can charge
users of
their own proprietary operating systems. These efforts, like
prior
rejected efforts to
change ETSI’s IPR policy to disfavor innovative SEP holders,
threaten innovation and
the ability of SSOs to incorporate robust
technologies.
It is then that they present their arguments
on
"de
facto standards" presenting similar dangers to the ones
being argued by the
people now challenging the way that
Standards bodies have evolved etc.. Well
worth a read if you
haven't yet had the chance.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|