decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Won't work - companies won't contribute to standards | 282 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Won't work - companies won't contribute to standards
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 14 2013 @ 11:21 AM EDT
And basically that's how things work. Companies that want to use standard
technologies that are patented reasonably will
approach the holders of that IP and negotiate a license that would entail
paying royalties to the holder(s) of that IP.

That's perfectly reasonable insofar as the R&D costs to develop and patent
valuable IP is rewarded.

The issue here is: Why hasn't Apple negotiated such a license? And if they want
a "thermonuclear" war, why should anyone
or any government agency try to protect them from their own plan of mutually
assured destruction? Are we seeing another
incarnation of the "too big to fail" doctrine here?

I don't believe apple is "too big to fail". I don't think the public
good would be harmed if their wares get banned. Only their
company stocks would be harmed and then they would get pressured by their
shareholders to fix the problem and stop
stealing someone else's IP. Then the ban would get lifted and business resumes
as normal.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )