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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
House example is flawed, flaw | 128 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
House example is flawed, flaw
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 21 2013 @ 03:20 PM EDT
Also, perhaps it'd be helpful to you to take a look at this from the entirely opposite angle: how does your favored position not completely and utterly destroy FRAND entirely? Say I contribute some patents to a standard under FRAND terms, and in general license them normally with a rate based on the technology embodying the patents (microchips say) and normal exhaustion. Then a company I don't like comes along and starts using that standard to. In your proposed world, I simply demand they pay, say, 10% of the entire cost of their device. An utter violation of FRAND, but fighting that out will take many years, and in the mean time I immediately get an injunction on them. Bam, I've destroyed them. It's a core standard, it's impossible for them to get around it. Being barred from the market for years? Destruction, pure and simple. Even a single year off the market would destroy them in any mildly competitive industry. If anyone can do this, FRAND as a concept is, in practical terms, dead.

Injunctions are insanely powerful and dangerous to a functioning market, and while important to some aspects must be applied with great care. But you and some of the other posters here seem to have developed an odd fetish for companies being able to use the coercive power of the legislative branch of government but not the judicial branch, which in theory is the branch actually best suited to making these kinds of calls.

[ 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 )