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
"Right to injunctions"? | 86 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"Right to injunctions"?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 11:12 AM EDT
I beleive there is a right not to license, and that leads to a right to enjoin
unlicensed use.

With SEPs the patent holder has agreed to license their existing SEPs on FRAND
terms to anyone. However what the owner of a patent sees as
"reasonable" may not be what the prospective licensee sees.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Right to injunctions"?
Authored by: cassini2006 on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 12:03 PM EDT

Patents come from a long time ago, when inventions were simpler, and it was believed that every invention was unique. As such, patents gave the inventor an exclusive right to make the article.

Historically, there was no right to royalties, and this multiple patents in one invention thing didn't exist.

Perhaps history provides the solution to the software patent problem: a patent can only cover one physical device.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Right to injunctions"?
Authored by: PolR on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 12:31 PM EDT
Nope. A patent is not a right to royalties because a patent holder has no
obligation to grant a license.

A patent is a right to exclude. No one can conduct any infringing activity
without the permission from the patent owner. In some cases the patent holder
will grant permission in exchange of the payment of royalties. In other cases
the patent holder will flatly refuse to license the patent and no amount of
royalties will give you permission. Injunctions is how the patent holders get
the courts to enforce the exclusion. This is why patent holders have a legal
right to injunctions. The right to exclude makes no sense without them.

In the case of SEP patent holders have committed to license the patents under
FRAND terms. But this is subject to negotiations that could fail. As Blackberry
explains, there are circumstances where the right to an injunction can still be
used.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"Right to injunctions"?
Authored by: ailuromancy on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 01:36 PM EDT

I thought it was the other way around. A patent grants a monopoly in return for disclosing how an invention works. There is nothing about royalty rates built into patent law. The monopoly is enforced by getting injunctions (or by hiring some big guys with baseball bats to smash cameras). With the threat of an injunction, a patent holder can negotiate a royalty rate with a manufacturer. Without that threat of an injunction, the only way for a patent holder to get paid is is the traditional one - hire the guys with the baseball bats and explain that something might happen to the factory if the owner doesn't buy some protection.

[ 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 )