Originally Posted by addabox
You keep flogging that article as if it has some blockbuster revelation about sub-licensing, but it never even deals with the concept beyond the same boilerplate you've cut and pasted. And I'm not sure what grants that particular article some kind of aura of infallibility-- do you know the author? Does the author have any kind of track record in these matters?
As has been mentioned, it seems pretty absurd to imagine that an army of highly paid lawyers have somehow overlooked a fundamental aspect of FRAND licensing, and anyway, as the article actually points out, there's nothing binding in the language, it merely serves as a guideline.
My guess is this little side gambit will get decisively refuted at some point, and you'll make some murmuring noises and move on. Which seems to kind of be your M.O.-- grabbing on to anything that might put Apple in a bad light, pimping it as hard as you can, at length, in thread after thread, then, when it turns out (as it so frequently does) that there's no "there" there, just sort of wander off. It's like a hobby, with you.
People on here dont personally know Florian, the patent lawyer, but yet everyone references his opinion. Should'nt he be held to the same standard as well?
You are trying to sideline the argument at hand here bringing up the authors credibility and refocusing the attention on something else.
Bylaws serve as a general rule among standard bodies. Hence why the author was referencing its wordings which suggests that the FRAND "rules" for telecommunications standards will have similar words in it.
If nothing is "binding", then Apple should get out of using the 3G standards or other teleco standards if they dont want to follow it. If Apple isnt pulling its fair share of the weight, why should the others? That defeats the purpose of having FRAND "rules" in the first place.
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Yes, none of these highly-paid lawyers or educated judges ever cared to consider this point, huh?
Explain to me then, if it's not possible to "sub-license" said FRAND patents (assuming your understanding of the term is correct), then why does Qualcomm pay a licensing fee? Why did Motorolla have to specifically target Apple when it cancelled the license? Apparently, no one should be granted a license, including all the other OEMs who use Qualcomm chips. So why is Qualcomm paying a license?
No matter how a contract is worded, the legal principle of patent exhaustion remains in affect.
Because Qualcomm licensed it? That is why Qualcomm is paying licensing fees? The "F" in FRAND does not stand for "Free". Am I not seeing something here?
It's most likely that the FRAND terms do have non-sublicensable clause in its wordings.
This is my speculation but a customer probably cannot, by sale of your products, acquire said licenses.
It must have its own license.
Apple contends that through use of Qualcomm's license that they are indirectly paying for it.
However, with words like "non-sublicensable", Apple is barred from this practice. They must have their very own license.
You must have a very favorable view of lawyers.
Apple is setting a dangerous precedent here. If they fail to follow the general guidelines of FRAND and dismiss its obligations based on the non-binding rules like you've said, no one in the industry will give up their patents for the benefit of the industry. They will all hog up their patents, preventing deployment of new technologies, interoperability and bring innovation to a screeching halt. Everyone will becomes it own island.