Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 08:03 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
anticipation of litigation or due to collateral litigation).
Second, I have postulated that this "FRAND abuse" started with the
manufacturers of Android devices as part of an offensive/defensive litigation
posture due to litigation by Apple, MS, Nokia, and others.
Third, it is my belief that now that this theory has been tested in the courts,
it
is being used by other parties.
Now, you ask for evidence of these claims.
The first is self-evident. The Posner opinion many of you enjoy citing speaks
to this. For that matter, so does the case mentioned upthread (which also
supports points three).
Samsung's actions have been detailed in, inter alia, the Ericsson litigation in
E.D. Tex. (yes, that district). Ericsson (if you read their complaints- see
Pacer
6:2012cv00895, 6:2012cv00894 E. D. Tex.) alleges that Samsung is
attempting to leverage a FRAND patents (SEP) to force Ericsson to license
non-encumbered patents to them. Hmmm.... where have we seen that before?
And so we could keep going on. I would add that there are also two major
anti-trust investigations in the United States, one by the EU, and assorted
ones across the Pacific. Admittedly, those are just "investigations",
but
government work, it takes a while.
Seriously- I can understand someone saying that they think that FRAND
patents should be weaponized like this (although I am a little surprised to see
it from you), but saying that there's no evidence? I honestly thought better of
the folks here.
Like I said- it's not about a team. I can say that business process patents are
wrong, or that software patents are (usually) overbroad and should be
invalidated, or that (IMO), many of Apple's patents shouldn't survive, but it's
important to call out the truth in litigation where you find it. (Unless you're
an
involved party)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 10:50 PM EST
- when an legal, aka monetary, remedy, would suffice - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST
- 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
- Still not listing a single verifiable fact! Still avoiding answering! - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 01:32 PM EST
|
|
|