|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
> I guess you missed that Apple VS Samsung trial.
(!)
> Intel makes a $10 cellular chip with patents that they licensed from
Samsung.
> Apple buys the $10 chip from Intel which carries the license onward...
Are you sure about that? I mean, the "carries the license onward"
part? Sure, Apple said something like that in court and in lots of press
releases. The problem is, one can not be sure whether the facts were observed
and the law was actually applied in that courtroom, or not. Sorry to say.
> Samsung cant ask Apple for money also since Intel already paid the
licensing fee.
> It's called patent exhaustion and Samsung and Moto are trying to circumvent
it.
Who actually knows whether or not the doctrine of patent exhaustion truly
applies in this particular case? The matter might well not be quite so cut and
dried, and might depend very much on some fine print. For example, Intel might
not have been licensed to do exactly the same thing which Apple was asked to
license. Also, I understand that many other companies actually did license
Samsung's patents without complaint. That could be relevant, too. Samsung's side
of the story remained essentially unheard, after all, during the trial. Are you
absolutely and positively sure that you have an informed opinion about the
matter?
My personal likes or dislikes for FRAND licensing for standards-essential
patents, and my likes or dislikes for patents in general have nothing do do with
my observation that both Apple and Microsoft want to have special rules which
apply just to them. Those desires are nakedly obvious. Yes, indeed they do want
something for nothing and if it is at the expense of Samsung or Motorola then so
much the better for them. Or is it so obvious that a "trade dress
patent" on a rectangular device with rounded corners is so worthy, also the
arrangement of icons in a rectangular grid on a screen, or patents on
"slide to unlock" and other, similar nonsense are worth a billion
dollars?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:33 PM EDT
- Standards essential ?? - Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 08:55 PM EDT |
My understanding was that Apple bought an Intel fabbed processor chip. After
they were sued, they noted that Intel did have a proper license to the patent.
They "hung their hat" on that license.
An imperfect analogy would be noting that Intel has a corporate license to
Microsoft Windows, and then claiming that you don't need to purchase a license
because your computer has an Intel processor.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Patent exhaustion - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 01:30 AM EDT
- Patent exhaustion - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 09:49 PM EDT
|
|
|
|