|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
I pointed out some time ago that, for a contract to exist, there must be an
exchange of consideration. For a contract term to be breached, the court must
establish what that contract term is. In this case, he has to guess at the
meeting of the minds of the ITU and Motorola about beneficial third party terms
that don't apply in most of the jurisdictions of the ITU.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
I was quoting liberally from "Interpreting and Enforcing the Voluntary FRAND
Commitment" just this morning to silence a couple of "Internet lawyers".
It's
certainly worth a read, and highlights just how contrary this ruling is to the
intent and accepted workings of the standards bodies.
An example:
"This desire
for clear rules is understandable, but it cannot be reconciled with the concept
of FRAND as adopted and understood by the industry participants who use it. The
terms “fair and reasonable” are on their face terms of wide latitude and
discretion, and as we have seen, that latitude has been emphasized rather than
restricted by commentary from multiple SSOs, and the membership of ETSI has more
than once rejected efforts to add more specific and therefore more constricting
limitations into the meaning of FRAND."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
