Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST |
Samsung has used FRAND patents in a defensive manner. I don't
believe they have used them in anyway other than counter
claims. If you can cite one case in which they didn't use
them in a counter claim, please do. There is no reason that
Samsung should not be able to defend themselves with their
entire patent portfolio.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:50 PM EST |
So you dont believe that injunctions should be allowed for
FRAND patents, so what exactly, would you say is the benefit
of having a patent in a FRAND pool then if anyone can abuse it
and nothing happens? Sounds like an illogical choice to make.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST |
You STILL don't get it.
If Apple refuse to get a licence, and Samsung aren't allowed to get an
injunction, WHAT LEGAL REMEDY IS THERE?
THAT is your FRAND abuse - companies don't bother to get a licence, and the poor
victims, the patent owners, HAVE NO REMEDY AVAILABLE!
Apple and MS are the prime examples of this sort of abuse.
We really should stop feeding the troll ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:56 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 11:15 AM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 06:22 PM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: yacc on Friday, December 14 2012 @ 08:19 AM EST
|
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 01:32 PM EST |
First, I have identified what I think is "FRAND abuse"
(which
consists of two actions- either seeking an
injunction
for a FRAND patents,
which I don't believe should be
allowed
by law, since the applicable standards
for injunctions
wouldn't cover it when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would
suffice; second, cutting off, refusing to license, or
bargaining in bad faith
in
I'm going to address this statement one piece at a
time:
seeking an injunction
for a FRAND patents, which I don't
believe should be
allowed by law
It doesn't matter what you
believe. The law states that
injunctive relief is a valid result from SEP
infringement.
cutting off, refusing to license, or bargaining in
bad faith
in
Can you show me where Motorola is "cutting off"
"refusing to
license" or "bargaining in bad faith" ?
because from what
i can tell, after apple and ms were
already using the patents in question,
motorola started
with an openning bid in an attempt to open negotiations.
then
apple and ms both decided not to negotiate, and
instead took moto to court.
Where in any of that does it say
that moto was "cutting off", "refusing to
license" or "bargaining in bad faith" with Apple or MS?
Therefore, based on
YOUR DEFINITION of what YOU THINK FRAND
abuse is... Motorola's use of its SEPs
does NOT
fall under that category.--- IANAL [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|