|
|
|
| Authored by: DannyB on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 10:16 AM EDT |
As you say: Companies do put patents into pools in order to promote standards.
They do so, expecting to license those patents.
But what happens when an Apple or Microsoft comes along and won't license the
patent? Or even negotiate? Shouldn't the patent holder then be able to get an
injunction on the infringing products? If not, then what teeth does the patent
holder have to obtain any license revenue?
It therefore seems that companies should NOT put their patents into such patent
pools. That way they are not bound by promises of FRAND rates and can negotiate
individually with those needing a license to the patent. That way they can
treat Apple and Microsoft specially, according to the amount of damage and cost
of doing business that Apple and Microsoft inflict upon a standards essential
patent holder.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 12:09 PM EDT |
The point is that no matter what the reason for contributing to the standard, it
is done with the expectation that the terms will be respected and rates will be
negotiated.
Along comes a monopoly who doesn't want to play fair, and suddenly
"negotiation" becomes "mugged and raped".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Misses the point - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 01:16 PM EDT
- Misses the point - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- Misses the point - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- Ah... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- Ah... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 07:00 PM EDT
- Misses the point - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 02:36 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
... to have the result that a Judge outside the particular standard body is
going to dictate what terms I must accept even though I certainly never agreed
to those terms, nor am I member of that particular standard body, nor is my
patent part of the technology involved in that particular standard:
I
certainly wouldn't willingly join any standard and as soon as I realized the
standard was implementing my patent I would immediately call the body to the
negotiating table for the patent
If the body refused to enter negotiations
to directly license the patent - not cross-license - I would initiate lawsuit
for infringment (or inducing infringment, as the case may be).
There's no
way I would wait for someone to implement the standard, then refuse to enter
good faith negotiations, then appeal to a Judge who will then dictate to me what
terms I'm going to enter are based on an entirely different
standard.
Forget that!
And make no mistake: I'd be negotiating
with the standards body for max licensing! Which is why I said no
cross-licensing. If I'm going to be held to a licensing fee by a Judge who
arbitrarily is deciding - I'm certainly going to be aiming for maximum licensing
in order to minimize the damage caused by the Judge.
As for "entitled to
patents": I'm a firm believer the software I author is not patent eligible
subject matter.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
A bit late to the party here, but a company I worked for was
fairly consistent in going the standards route with its
patents, including making some patents available at zero
cost (conditional on not being sued over other patents!).
In particular this point characterised their thinking:
* to base a standard around a technology that they already
have developed and are experienced with thus giving them an
early advantage in product development
In addition to that, the company believed that making the
pie bigger was preferable to monopolising a much smaller
pie. This was important because they make real widgets -
with the much bigger market created by a standardised
technology, economies of scale result in much lower unit
cost. In a market where a single deal might cover tens to
hundreds of thousands of these devices, this gives a
significant advantage against proprietary products.
Finally, sharing patented technology enabled the company to
give customers the comfort of knowing that they were not at
their mercy, that if the company failed or decided to hike
their prices there were easy alternative sources of
compatible products.
It is worth noting that the company started with a
proprietary product, and was drawn into standardisation by
customer request.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
