A FRAND obligation is one to the whole industry - not
aimed just at a new
entrant. In joining a standard one
also agrees to play by the rules of the
Standards Orgs.?
The 'Fair', 'Reasonable' and (especially in this
consideration!) Non-Discriminatory offer is to
everybody. If one player
refuses to undertake the
required implications of using the Standards
to
negotiate their licence, then ALL the other
players are harmed -
discriminating against ALL the ones
who played by the rules who did
not have the
advantage of this prolonged, deliberately manipulated
period
of reduced costs
(especially of entry).This speaks to the
history of
how the implementation of such standards have
been successful in the
pragmatic sense while
acknowledging their inherent dangers. In the
latter
'reputational' damage
has been one of the big factors in
everybody playing
fair in a technologically demanding, competitive
industry, which recognises, builds and draws on the
technological
contributions/investments of many players in the sector.
This seems to be
of little consequence when a big bully shows up!
As for being 'made whole'
by money. When is that
ever NOT the case in ANY litigation. Yet,
'Irreparable
harm' (seemingly a reasonable and an obvious
concept) - eg bankruptcy(?) can be
made whole by enough money to
re-establish a replacement
company - if there is enough money in
the
infringing company - or the world, after
the lawyers have 'skimmed
out' their years of fees and
costs? "Standards" infringements are different
because
any
'harm' is industry wide - stifling innovation and the
benefits of playing a part in working towards
interoperability.
Could a SEP Company, and/or the others playing by
the rules, be
made bankrupt or lose market share or
forever miss out on market
opportunities for lack
of a few billion dollars lost revenue? (Apple claim
such
damage even when
they're making billions so it can only be 'market
share'
and/or reputational damage?). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|