It seems to me the grandfather/OP makes two arguable points,
one of them
interesting. The uninteresting (to me) point is
that Google/Motorola and
Samsung shouldn't renege on FRAND
licensing commitments, which is AFAIK merely
the Apple (and
Microsoft) spin on SEP vs. non-SEP facts that will be
litigated
in due course.
The interesting point is that "patents are not property".
Of course at first glance this is simply false. Patents can
be bought and
sold, so in themselves they are property.
However I think the underlying
notion is that patents do not
represent ownership of the invention (much less
of the idea
embodied in the invention), but rather a right of monopoly
on
producing or licensing the invention.
I'm not convinced this sheds much
light on the SEP vs. non-
SEP FRAND obligations that form the rest of the
argument,
but I'd be happy to see more argument that demolishes the
grand
illusion of "intellectual property".
--- Recursion is the opprobrium of
the mathists. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|