or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by KPOM

The crux of the debate is that to definitively assert a FRAND defense, apparently one needs to admit prior infringement. The net effect of this is that someone who genuinely believes a FRAND patent is invalid is caught between a rock and a hard place. Either pay the FRAND royalty and waive the ability to contest the patent, or take your chances in court. Apple has the resources to do the latter. But not every company does. This exposes a flaw in the FRAND system (one...
You're not a patent lawyer, so no, there's nothing wrong with that last bit. Enjoy the sales spike for as long as it lasts.
Apple approached Motorola years ago about licensing the patents on FRAND terms. Motorola Mobility decided to play hardball. Apple is more than happy to settle out of court. Nokia is a good example. Nokia has far more patents than Motorola Mobility and has done more to develop mobile communications standards than anyone else. They had a brief war of words, but then later came to an amicable settlement.
I disagree. Motorola Mobility was looking to use a rather ordinary patent as a gold mine, much the same way that Microsoft has done with Android licensees.
The whole dispute seems to be over the royalty amount. Apple wants to pay FRAND rates while disputing the validity of the patent. Motorola Mobility wants to charge more than FRAND for that period from 2007 to whenever it was that Apple first approached them about a license.Neither stock is moving much today, so I'm guessing what will happen is that this will force a relatively quick settlement, depending on what results Apple gets at the appeals court.Given that the EU is...
How so? Motorola apparently refused to license the patents on FRAND terms because Apple wanted to reserve the right to contest the patent. It sounds like Motorola was the one overreaching. Anyway, Motorola's attorney in Germany is also the same one who got the Samsung injunction lifted. Perhaps Apple should think about switching law firms. It sounds like the only matter under actual dispute is the amount of royalties Apple will pay Motorola. Apple wants to pay FRAND rates...
These sound like FRAND patents, since they are essential to the GPRS standard. I'm a bit surprised the court didn't just order monetary damages, but German courts seem to have one weapon only (product bans). Apple isn't being hit in pre-market trading, so I'm guessing that the two sides will just settle this.
So far, courts seem to be very reluctant to block sales of products, perhaps because the industry moves so rapidly. It will be interesting to see how many units Samsung actually manages to sell. There is no competition from the Kindle Fire in Australia, at least not yet. Here in the US, the Tab has been on sale for quite a while, but hasn't gained much attention or traction because of the Fire. Also, Samsung has lost several bids to block the iPhone 4S. My guess is that...
Perhaps the Australian market is different from the American market? Apple has a lot of brand equity in the US, and perhaps more so than in Australia. Perhaps they are worried about losing sales there, but not so much here.Then again, from what I recall, Apple merely told the court in Australia that it preferred the status quo (i.e. no sales of the Galaxy) to an outcome where the Galaxy is sold but Samsung pays royalties in accordance with their proposed settlement....
Yes, but I think the point is that if it isn't going to directly harm Apple's market share, then other remedies (i.e. monetary) would be appropriate if the final ruling is that Samsung violated valid Apple patents. There's a higher threshold to ban sales of a product than there are for awarding monetary damages. Product bans are generally warranted only if allowing sales of an infringing product would cause irreparable harm. If Apple would lose significant sales to...
New Posts  All Forums: