Also, perhaps it'd be helpful to you to take a look at this from the entirely
opposite angle:
how does your favored position not completely and utterly
destroy
FRAND entirely?
Say I contribute some patents to a standard under
FRAND terms, and in
general
license them normally with a rate based on the
technology embodying the
patents
(microchips say) and normal exhaustion. Then
a company I don't like comes
along and
starts using that standard to. In your
proposed world, I simply demand they
pay, say, 10%
of the entire cost of their
device. An utter violation of FRAND, but fighting
that out will take
many
years, and in the mean time I immediately get an injunction on them.
Bam, I've
destroyed them. It's a core standard, it's impossible for them to get around
it.
Being barred
from the market for years? Destruction, pure and simple. Even
a single year
off the market
would destroy them in any mildly competitive
industry. If anyone can do this, FRAND as a concept is, in
practical terms,
dead.
Injunctions are insanely powerful and dangerous to a functioning
market, and
while
important to some aspects must be applied with great care.
But you and some
of the other
posters here seem to have developed an odd
fetish for companies being able
to use the
coercive power of the legislative
branch of government but not the judicial
branch, which in
theory is the
branch actually best suited to making these kinds of calls. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|