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 - FRAND obligation | 128 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
House example is flawed, flaw
Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 18 2013 @ 04:19 PM EDT
No. The issue is: what do you do when someone
is not a willing licensee? They can't exclude
a willing licensee under any circumstance. But
what about when the company refuses to pay
anything? *Then* do you get to exclude?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

House example is flawed, flaw - FRAND obligation
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 09:33 AM EDT
A FRAND obligation is one to the whole industry - not aimed
just at a new entrant. In joining a standard one also agrees
to play by the rules of the Standards Orgs.? The 'Fair',
'Reasonable' and (especially in this consideration!)
Non-Discriminatory offer is to everybody. If one player refuses
to undertake the required implications of using the
Standards to negotiate their licence, then ALL the other
players are harmed - discriminating against ALL the ones who
played by the rules
who did not have the advantage of this
prolonged, deliberately manipulated period of reduced costs
(especially of entry).

This speaks to the history of how the implementation of such
standards have been successful in the pragmatic sense while
acknowledging their inherent dangers. In the latter 'reputational'
damage has been one of the big factors in everybody
playing fair in a technologically demanding, competitive
industry, which recognises, builds and draws on the technological
contributions/investments of many players in the sector. This seems
to be of little consequence when a big bully shows up!

As for being 'made whole' by money. When is that ever
NOT the case in ANY litigation. Yet, 'Irreparable harm'
(seemingly a reasonable and an obvious concept)
- eg bankruptcy(?) can be made whole by enough money to
re-establish a replacement company - if there is enough money
in the infringing company - or the world, after the lawyers
have 'skimmed out' their years of fees and costs?
"Standards" infringements are different because any
'harm' is industry wide - stifling innovation and the benefits
of playing a part in working towards interoperability.

Could a SEP Company, and/or the others playing by the rules,
be made bankrupt or lose market share or forever miss out on market
opportunities for lack of a few billion dollars lost revenue?
(Apple claim such damage even when they're making billions
so it can only be 'market share' and/or reputational damage?).

[ 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 )