or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

Ericsson clearly stated they offered binding arbitration. Non-binding would be a useless exercise wouldn't it? That's why one of Apple's lawsuits was dismissed before it was even heard as their legal team told the judge in advance they wouldn't accept anything more than a $1 a device from her (name your own ruling?), otherwise drawing it out for years and years with the IP holder getting nothing.
If taken to the extreme perhaps, but that's not what's going on.
I don't necessarily disagree. That doesn't mean a whole lot of damage might not be done in the process of change.
It's always worked until quite recently and still is the prevailing method of determining royalties in wireless standards. I'd expect in Apple's case it will be "ya win some ya lose some" for quite while.In the meantime if they want to remain consistent in their statements about respecting intellectual property rights they may have to take a couple of licenses they'd prefer for business reasons not to, at least until things have a couple of years to shake out.
He's absolutely correct about the IEEE recently making an effort to change their licensing policies. I've posted that here before.Unfortunately it's actually had the effect of backfiring somewhat as companies including Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson and others, some of the biggest patent owners on the planet, have announced they'll no longer issue licenses under the IEEE standards. That's only makes things much more difficult and unclear instead of simplifying things.Here's a...
Apple doesn't give any indication of what they would do if the basis remains the wholesale cost of the hardware. You've always had an opinion so I'm simply curious what you personally think Apple would do in that event: Use the IP unlicensed anyway or accept it for the time being and take a license just as they had before? If you prefer not to offer your opinion fair enough.
If it goes against them and the basis remains the wholesale cost of the hardware do you personally expect Apple to accept that and take a license? Not asking you to speak for Apple but I am curious what you yourself think would happen.
In actuality they did, but they can afford to.
Where else would you expect a company claiming patent infringement file? I suppose they could have gone to Delaware, another venue friendly to patent holders. Every company and their lawyers tries to find the friendliest court to file in. Common sense. In Apple's case that's the Northern District of California apparently unless that was their only option.
I suppose that depends what is meant by independent arbitrator. There's no mention by Apple why they refused it and it would be assumed they would have had a say in who the arbitrator was. There was another instance a couple years ago of Apple giving notice they wouldn't be bound by a court's determination of what was FRAND/fair.
New Posts  All Forums: