Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
I beleive there is a right not to license, and that leads to a right to enjoin
unlicensed use.
With SEPs the patent holder has agreed to license their existing SEPs on FRAND
terms to anyone. However what the owner of a patent sees as
"reasonable" may not be what the prospective licensee sees.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cassini2006 on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
Patents come from a long time ago, when inventions were simpler, and it was
believed that every invention was unique. As such, patents gave the inventor an
exclusive right to make the article.
Historically, there was no right to
royalties, and this multiple patents in one invention thing didn't
exist.
Perhaps history provides the solution to the software patent problem:
a patent can only cover one physical device. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
Nope. A patent is not a right to royalties because a patent holder has no
obligation to grant a license.
A patent is a right to exclude. No one can conduct any infringing activity
without the permission from the patent owner. In some cases the patent holder
will grant permission in exchange of the payment of royalties. In other cases
the patent holder will flatly refuse to license the patent and no amount of
royalties will give you permission. Injunctions is how the patent holders get
the courts to enforce the exclusion. This is why patent holders have a legal
right to injunctions. The right to exclude makes no sense without them.
In the case of SEP patent holders have committed to license the patents under
FRAND terms. But this is subject to negotiations that could fail. As Blackberry
explains, there are circumstances where the right to an injunction can still be
used.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ailuromancy on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
I thought it was the other way around. A patent grants a
monopoly in return
for disclosing how an invention works.
There is nothing about royalty rates
built into patent law.
The monopoly is enforced by getting injunctions (or by
hiring
some big guys with baseball bats to smash cameras).
With the threat of
an injunction, a patent holder can
negotiate a royalty rate with a
manufacturer.
Without that threat of an injunction, the only way for a patent
holder
to get paid is is the traditional one - hire the guys with the
baseball
bats and explain that something might happen
to the factory if the owner
doesn't buy some protection. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|