|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
No, I am saying that Motorola's H.264 patent is certainly one of the least
valuable patents that are potentially essential to H.264 and that their rate is
absurdly unRAND at a 4000x rate.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 28 2013 @ 03:57 AM EDT |
I would also suggest that the situation where one patent in a standard
represents 99.5% of the value of the standard would never happen. If 99.5% of
the value of a standard is in a single patent then the owner of that patent will
simply commercialise the technology. A standard works where many parties need to
cooperate in order to achieve a viable technology. Any single patent owner can
choose to participate or not. If they decide to not participate, then the
standards group can simply develop an alternate approach to the same technical
requirement, and the original patent owner will be left aside, and perhaps never
be able to create any value from the invention.
Standards are about promoting trade (as in the rising tide raises all ships),
and patents are about promoting sales of a single company. A group of companies
coming together to create a single market is a cartel, and the way standards get
around this requirement is to agree the RAND contract. A patent will simply not
be included in a standard unless the owner has made a RAND commitment. Having
made the commitment, going alone or joining a pool is simply about commercial
efficiency. In a pool, every potential licensor knows who to approach, and can
be confident that development of the technology can proceed unencumbered.
Without a pool, a potential licensor will need to approach many patent owners
and make individual agreements, wasting time and money for everybody.
The RAND commitment is a contract matter, and so the courts/arbitration/mutual
agreement is the appropriate approach.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|