decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Supreme Court Voids [redacted] Patent | 98 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Supreme Court Voids [redacted] Patent
Authored by: UncleVom on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 07:12 PM EST
Sometimes the Courts will stand strong on basic principals.
(You can make a clicky. No?)

Some may wish to see this logic spill back over the Southern border.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Canada - Supreme Court paves way for generic [redacted], striking down Pfizer patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 07:58 PM EST
The Supreme Court, in an unanimous 7-0 ruling, annulled Pfizer's [redacted] patent, saying it tried to "game" the Canadian system. The high court sided with Teva Canada's challenge of the legitimacy of the patent, paving the way for cheaper, generic versions.

The decision has big implications for users of erectile dysfunction drugs and the pharmaceutical industry because it allows companies to create generic versions that are usually cheaper for consumers.

Mike Blanchfield, The Tyee



Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2012 SCC 60

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Competition in Information Technologies: Standards-Essential Patents, NPE, and FRAND
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 10:32 PM EST
Competition in Information Technologies: Standards- Essential Patents, Non-Practicing Entities and FRAND Bidding

Standard Setting is omnipresent in networked information technologies. Virtually every cellular phone, computer, digital camera or similar device contains technologies governed by a collaboratively developed standard. If these technologies are to perform competitively, the processes by which standards are developed and implemented must be competitive. In this case attaining competitive results requires a mixture of antitrust and non-antitrust legal tools.

FRAND refers to a firm’s ex ante commitment to make its technology available at a “fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory royalty.” The FRAND commitment results from bidding to have one’s own technology selected as a standard. Typically the FRAND commitment is not a promise to charge any particular price, but only a price that meets FRAND expectations. This permits members of a standard setting organization (SSO) to focus on technical issues and worry about the price later. Two important questions that a FRAND commitment typically leaves open is the royalty base and the royalty rate. A strong case can be made that the base should be the smallest saleable unit containing the patented technology. While that base is not entirely free from problems, it does provide a more-or-less common currency. The FRAND obligation that the rate be nondiscriminatory typically, but not always, provides a set of yardsticks for measuring the rate.

The non-practicing entity (NPE) that voluntarily declines to participate in an SSO process should generally be held to the FRAND royalty as its measure of its damages, even though its particular patents are not FRAND- encumbered. In this case a “reasonable” royalty is the royalty that the patent holder would have obtained in the competitive market in which it might have participated. The case for limiting NPE damages in this way is strongest when the NPE had actual or objectively reasonable knowledge of the SSO process but declined to participate. The case is weakest when the SSO’s processes were not well communicated to outsiders or the NPE in question was not permitted to participate.

FRAND commitments should “run with the patent,” in the sense that owners of FRAND-encumbered patents should not be able to free them simply by assigning the patents to someone else. One fundamental principle of property law is that a property owner cannot transfer away a larger interest than it owns. The entire FRAND commitment process would be worthless if patent holders were able to evade it by the simple device of assigning encumbered patents in order to remove the encumbrance.

The question of injunctive relief is only a little more complex. A FRAND commitment is on its face an offer to license to all who employ that patent in their standards-compatible product. True, the precise royalty terms are typically not specified in advance, but that entails that the FRAND royalty will be determined by reference to common indicia such as rates paid for similar technologies in the same or perhaps another situation. Further, the FRAND commitment effectively turns the royalty issues into a breach of contract claim rather than a litigated royalty claim. Permitting the owner of a FRAND- encumbered patent to have an injunction against someone willing to pay FRAND royalties is tantamount to making the patent holder the dictator of the royalties, which once again is the same thing as no FRAND commitment at all.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What file format?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 11:17 PM EST
I was looking at the instructions for a terrestrial HD receiver with PVR and it
states that it has to reformat drives as it uses a proprietary format.

Model is - Brand: DTVS Model: DTVS-T1...

Anybody any idea of what format it uses as I wouldn't want my USB hard drives
reformatted to something that Linux cannot read. It appears to be a re-badged
machine from somewhere with no indication of the original manufacturer and being
sold locally by an outfit that I don't know.

[ 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 )