or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads - Page 6

post #201 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Change the players. Samsung sells a set of FRAND-pledged patents, properly licensed by Apple, to a 3rd party PAE for patent enforcement. The new owner of those patents decides that Apple no longer has a license and demands new negotiations with Apple or they sue for infringement. To top it off Samsung invests in that PAE and receives income from the new licensing activity. OK with you?

It will of course depends on how that agreement is laid out (Can the parties get out of it so easily ?).
If so, the new agreement will have to stick to FRAND and does not abuse the SEPs (and whatever anti-* laws in play). It may be cheaper or more expensive depending on the circumstances.

The RS CEO won't be able to guarantee everything stay the same under oath until he has reviewed every single agreement, and the new business direction. He will get into trouble if he over-promises.
post #202 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Neither Mr Fromer or the ITC said that Samsung abused the FRAND patent process with Apple in this specific case. .

Right. So Obama blocked the ban just for kicks. /s

Read all the documents. It's absolutely clear that FRAND abuse was the driving force for the veto.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #203 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Right. So Obama blocked the ban just for kicks. /s

Read all the documents. It's absolutely clear that FRAND abuse was the driving force for the veto.

I read both the ITC ruling highlights and the letter that explained the overruling of the ITC ordered injunction. I'll suggest that you have not. Apple was the only one found to be abusing the FRAND process.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #204 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

It will of course depends on how that agreement is laid out (Can the parties get out of it so easily ?).
If so, the new agreement will have to stick to FRAND and does not abuse the SEPs (and whatever anti-* laws in play). It may be cheaper or more expensive depending on the circumstances.

The RS CEO won't be able to guarantee everything stay the same under oath until he has reviewed every single agreement, and the new business direction. He will get into trouble if he over-promises.

Ah, so it might be OK with you if Samsung's designated patent enforcement agent pulls Apple's license and insists on more robust royalties. Or Moto does so. Or Nokia (hint: watch for that one 1wink.gif )

Fair enough. I'll note your opinion.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #205 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I read both the ITC ruling highlights and the letter that explained the overruling of the ITC ordered injunction. I'll suggest that you have not. Apple was the only one found to be abusing the FRAND process.

Gatorguy: The Bringer of Truth to the Ignorant Masses and He Who Knows Better Than Presidents, Presidential Advisors, Senators, and Solicitors.

Seriously, dude, go get a life instead of hijacking threads and polluting forums. Displaying your pompous need for attention in public is getting real boring.
My car keeps crashing whenever I do 150mph. It's a design flaw. People tell me to slow down and drive normally but I should be able to use it as I wish.
Reply
My car keeps crashing whenever I do 150mph. It's a design flaw. People tell me to slow down and drive normally but I should be able to use it as I wish.
Reply
post #206 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I read both the ITC ruling highlights and the letter that explained the overruling of the ITC ordered injunction. I'll suggest that you have not. Apple was the only one found to be abusing the FRAND process.

 

... of which the Whitehouse and the supporting industry players believe is flawed. That's why the President veto'ed the ban.

 

From Apple's perspective, they likely won't sign said deal with Samsung until Samsung stop abusing the SEPs.

 

In EU, Samsung chose to back off:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/12/samsung-drops-all-requests-for.html

 

... but EU want a piece of Samsung anyway on antitrust grounds (for abusing SEPs).

 

In US, Samsung's move is "only" veto'ed by the President. No punishment yet.


Edited by patsu - 8/4/13 at 5:57pm
post #207 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Ah, so it might be OK with you if Samsung's designated patent enforcement agent pulls Apple's license and insists on more robust royalties. Or Moto does so. Or Nokia (hint: watch for that one 1wink.gif )

Fair enough. I'll note your opinion.

 

... which is why it is important to lay down the ground rules and principles for SEP licensing. Once that's settled, the legislature folks couldn't care less about business agreements between companies. The agreements will spell out the specific terms. It would be business as usual. 


Edited by patsu - 8/4/13 at 5:51pm
post #208 of 262

I think if Apple violated Samsung's SEP, then Apple should be fined, but blocking Apple products is taking unfair advantage of SEP because Apple is very much a Samsung competitor and this is about competing product lines. It is also desperation to block a competitor with SEP, because you could then pretty much block everyone. Hey why not do that? Lets be king with these SEPs! ... bull poop case, raise your SEP licensing price and sue when competitors refuse to oblige.

post #209 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

Basically the above quote means to me and most reasonable people is that ..

I think you're onto something here.. :)

post #210 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Even Apple has never taken the position that injunctions involving SEP's are never an appropriate remedy.
 

 

You sure about that? Here's a letter written to ETSI where Apple is pretty clear you should not seek injunctions in regards to SEP's. Apple goes further to say that this applies both to IP you developed and IP that you may have acquired where the party you acquired it from also declared it as FRAND.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80899178/11-11-11-apple-letter-to-etsi-on-frand

post #211 of 262
Why would tech companies bother making a technology a Standard then ?
They might aswell keep it as an Intellectual Property instead. That way they can enforce bans right ? Would this veto result in tech never becoming SEP's ???
post #212 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

Why would tech companies bother making a technology a Standard then ?
They might aswell keep it as an Intellectual Property instead. That way they can enforce bans right ? Would this veto result in tech never becoming SEP's ???

 

Well... open source software development and royalty-free IPs exist today. We should be able to find plenty on the net.

 

Companies can charge for SEPs. They just can't abuse the IPs.

These IPs are adopted industry-wide quickly in a neutral fashion.

post #213 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Well... open source software development and royalty-free IPs exist today. We should be able to find plenty on the net.

Companies can charge for SEPs. They just can't abuse the IPs.
I'm talking about hardware tech not becoming a standard. Like 3G or LTE or Bluetooth. What if those weren't standards and were proprietary tech ?

I wonder if that could become the new strategy tech companies use instead of making it an SEP. Simply because it allows the owner of such a tech monopoly in the business.
Edited by nikilok - 8/4/13 at 11:36pm
post #214 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post


I'm talking about hardware tech not becoming a standard. Like 3G or LTE or Bluetooth. What if those weren't standards and were proprietary tech ?

 

Even if they can't impose import ban using the SEPs, they can still continue to make money from the royalties.

 

There are royalty-free hardware IPs. e.g., DisplayPort.

It's up to the businesses to decide what they want to do, and how they monetize their IPs.

e.g., Before the ubiquitous TCP/IP, there were Novell Netware, Windows for Workgroup, and other proprietary network technologies.

post #215 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Even if they can't impose import ban using the SEPs, they can still continue to make money from the royalties.

There are royalty-free hardware IPs. e.g., DisplayPort.
It's up to the businesses to decide what they want to do, and how they monetize their IPs.
e.g., Before the ubiquitous TCP/IP, there were Novell Netware, Windows for Workgroup, and other proprietary network technologies.
Ah so obviously it means if a company comes out with a tech that's proprietary someone's going to make an alternate solution and make it an SEP or even just a open standard. That itself is an opportunity presenting itself.

And when that happens the company that originally made the tech proprietary would realize what a waste of money it was. And in turn face the risk of getting less relevant in the industry.
Edited by nikilok - 8/4/13 at 11:52pm
post #216 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

Actually, Samsung did.  Look here:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/07/wheres-doj-samsung-takes-extortionate.html

 

No sir, Samsung did not require cross-licensing.

 

That excerpt from the Commissioner's statement has to be read in context.

All that Samsung as a SEP holder is required to do, is offer a cash price that anyone can pay.  Any other deal is gravy for both sides, and as the Commissioner pointed out, is perfectly legal.

Samsung made several offers to Apple, including the 2.4% cash price, AND another offer to lower rates through cross-licensing non-FRAND patents.

The Commissioner was not saying that Samsung was wrong to make such an offer. On the contrary, he said it was okay if consensual.  The Commissioner was simply stating that he didn't think it should qualify to be listed as a FRAND offer with any other FRAND offers.

In other words, he was asking, if you ignore that particular offer, do the remaining offer(s) count as FRAND offer(s)?

Mueller's article made it sound like it was the only offer. It was not.

 

Why bicker over that part of the offer anyway? 2.4% of the iPhone isn't a FRAND offer and we all know it. Samsung could make a true FRAND offer and get their money. They will not do that as they see this argument over their SEPs as one of the only things going for them in their larger dispute with Apple. Their designs are evolving enough to be distinct from iPhone. They could workaround most of the patent issues, offer FRAND rates and rake in cash while keeping Apple as a customer. I'm not sure what it is in their culture that is preventing this, but it is pretty bad business. I can only assume that they will continue to fight it because they intend to continue to copy or push the boundaries of doing so. Given the limited exposure they have had legally, it has not been that bad for them. The biggest hit may well be loosing Apple as a customer, but that has not happened and may actually be difficult for Apple to do completely.  

post #217 of 262
Well the short term impact of all this being samsung loosing a billion dollars of market cap in the stock exchange.
post #218 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

IOW, you pulled it out of your a**.

There's nothing in his letter that suggests that it was primarily due to public interest. "In part" does not equal "Primarily due to".

Your trolling is getting lamer every day.

LOL. Since the trade representative made it clear that SEP injunctions might be appropriate in certain circumstances and the number one thing he wanted the ITC to pay attention to in future rulings was the public interest concerns and then noting his press quote cited the same public interest concerns too it's pretty obvious sir. The fact you have problems seeing it isn't terribly surprising to me. Perhaps you could ask a mathematician for a formula that might lead you to the answer. 1rolleyes.gif

EDIT: If you have a good understanding of English you won't even need a mathematician to show you how to arrive at the right answer. Just peruse the letter AI linked for you in the article itself. Page three, paragraph three if you're not a great reader or simply impatient.

Hmmmm. . .

"This decision is based on... the effect on competitive conditions in the U.S. economy and the effect on U.S. consumers". Huh. Public interest concerns just as I said.

Egregious trolling isn't a great start for you on a Sunday morning. Maybe you could tone it down at least one day a week.

 

My interpretation was that it was for public interest concerns, but specifically around the publics interest in SEPs not being abused as it would harm efforts going forward for standards. Standards are the a huge public interest. Without them, most technology would not be where it is. 

post #219 of 262
South Korean gov / media is already reacting to this. The media is calling this act as protectionism.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/south-korea-says-concerned-u-060733239.html

Damn I hope a new Cold War doesn't start up. Or has it already begun ?
post #220 of 262

It's not US specific. Samsung probaby need to settle their SEP differences with EU's antitrust team first, if not already in progress.

post #221 of 262
Irrespective of what the facts of this case be, what would the general public perceive this as back in the Asian countries , when they read there local papers abusing the American government?
Just another reason to side with an Asian manufacturer since the affair is going political.

In the end it all sums down to that. Public perception.
Edited by nikilok - 8/5/13 at 1:05am
post #222 of 262

Perhaps. But it will also be a good time to observe the marketing and journalism of our era.

Is it just astroturfing and superficial PR ?

 

In Asia, Samsung tried to get rid of the Taiwanese manufacturers with astroturfing tactics, and was busted. It's not a unified whole to begin with.


Edited by patsu - 8/5/13 at 1:14am
post #223 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Perhaps. But it will also be a good time to observe the marketing and journalism of our era.
Is it just astroturfing and PR ?

In Asia, Samsung tried to get rid of the Taiwanese manufacturers with astroturfing techniques. It's not a unified whole to begin with.
Local competition is something that happens in every economy. I'm sure it's not any different elsewhere.
The dangers when technology is sided by a political factor is it starts becoming more of a regional sided thing than just the brand itself speaking for itself.
I am sure they are aware of this and the US government will rarely get themselves involved in such scenarios.
If they kept doing this more often it would look like protectionism.

Perhaps Samsung predicted this and knew they could win the peoples hearts in there region when news like this comes out.
post #224 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post


Local competition is something that happens in every economy. I'm sure it's not any different elsewhere.
The dangers when technology is sided by a political factor is it starts becoming more of a regional sided thing than just the brand itself speaking for itself.
I am sure they are aware of this and the US government will rarely get themselves involved in such scenarios.
If they kept doing this more often it would look like protectionism.

Perhaps Samsung predicted this and knew they could win the peoples hearts in there region when news like this comes out.

 

It is not hard to predict this outcome given that the SEP abuse has been acknowledged by EU (in order to kick off the antitrust case).

 

In that regard, Apple and others may have anticipated this outcome too. At the end of the day, they need to do what is right.

 

The rest will depend on execution.

 

Samsung is indeed strong in Asia. Asian consumers may be blindsided but they are not stupid.

 

EDIT: I think Apple may be more successful if they release a bigger phone for the Asian markets though.


Edited by patsu - 8/5/13 at 2:55am
post #225 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

It is not hard to predict this outcome given that the SEP abuse has been acknowledged by EU (in order to kick off the antitrust case).

There's a more recent story that provides details.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/05/samsungs-vetoed-push-for-an-itc-ban-against-apple-inc-in-pictures

In particular, this story answers virtually every single point made by our local shills and trolls.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #226 of 262
@Stevel

*If Samsung can't beat Apple at innovation? Samsung has built its career around Apple and completely tried to steal their business model, in addition, tried to acquire a patent that was never theirs! Are you brain dead? Have you not seen everything Samesung has stolen from Apple? Samesung was Apple's assistant. The assistant completely ripped off Apple, now they are trying to start Samesung stores in Best Buys like Apple Stores, even more pathetic. I can't wait for Apple to come out with a TV, so I can sell my Samesung TV. Samesung is bad business, period. Unethical business practice my friend. We live in a cold world. Now let's see how much Apple will crush Samesung at TVs.
post #227 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

Why would tech companies bother making a technology a Standard then ?
They might aswell keep it as an Intellectual Property instead. That way they can enforce bans right ? Would this veto result in tech never becoming SEP's ???

Licensing brings in money. If a company doesn't offer it as SEP, another company might offer a similar tech as SEP. SEP will stop companies from trying to reinvent the wheel and gives the SEP holders monetary incentive to do so.
post #228 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Licensing brings in money. If a company doesn't offer it as SEP, another company might offer a similar tech as SEP. SEP will stop companies from trying to reinvent the wheel and gives the SEP holders monetary incentive to do so.

Nokia might be bluffing, but they claim they are no longer contributing to some standards due to SEP enforcement problems.

"[Jenni Lukander, global head of competition law at Nokia] said the problem of “free-riding”, whereby technology companies adopt standard essential patents (SEPs) without complying with fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms was a “far bigger problem” than patent holders pursuing injunctive relief. She said this behaviour was “unsustainable”, as it discouraged innovation and jeopardised standardisation.

Because of the current atmosphere, Lukander said, Nokia has stepped back from the standardisation process, electing either not to join certain standard-setting organisations (SSOs) or not to contribute certain technologies to these organisations.

The fact that every licence negotiation takes places “under the threat of injunction litigation” is not a sign of failure, said Lukander, but an indicator of the system working “as it was designed to work”.

This, said [Dan Hermele, director of IP rights and licensing for Qualcomm Europe], amounted to “reverse hold-up”. “The licensor is pressured to accept less than reasonable licensing terms due to the threat of unbalanced regulatory intervention,” he said, adding that the trend was moving to an “infringe and litigate model”, which threatened to harm innovators, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, “for whom IPR is their life blood”.

Beat Weibel, chief IP counsel at Siemens, said…innovation can only be beneficial if it occurs within a “safe and strong IP system,” he said, where a “willing licensee is favoured over a non-willing licensee” and the enforcer is not a “toothless tiger”.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #229 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Nokia might be bluffing, but they claim they are no longer contributing to some standards due to SEP enforcement problems.

Nokia, of all companies, should be offering its patents as SEP. it's "free money" and something we all know it needs.
post #230 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Nokia, of all companies, should be offering its patents as SEP. it's "free money" and something we all know it needs.

Nokia is saying their patents are more valuable and enforceable if they aren't FRAND-committed.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #231 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Nokia is saying their patents are more valuable and enforceable if they aren't FRAND-committed.

But that's kind of naive on their part. New tech will be developed and then used for a standard. Nokia isn't the only company in the world to develop cellular tech.
post #232 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

But that's kind of naive on their part. New tech will be developed and then used for a standard. Nokia isn't the only company in the world to develop cellular tech.

Apple has the same general view on IP and FRAND-pledged contributions don't they? W3C has tried for some time to get Apple to contribute their applicable patents to new web standards and Apple continues to resist. So far Apple's way seems to work well for them. Perhaps Nokia is beginning to feel the same way.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #233 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Apple has the same general view on IP and FRAND-pledged contributions don't they? W3C has tried for some time to get Apple to contribute their applicable patents to new web standards and Apple continues to resist. So far Apple's way seems to work well for them. Perhaps Nokia is beginning to feel the same way.

WebKit does that ring a bell ?

Apple is part of the community that contributes to HTML 5 if you aren't aware.

Canvas in html 5 is an Apple implementation that made it into standards.

post #234 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

WebKit does that ring a bell ?
Apple is part of the community that contributes to HTML 5 if you aren't aware.
Canvas in html 5 is an Apple implementation that made it into standards.

I'm completely aware that Apple has contributed to certain standards, and I did not indicate or imply they had not. In the case of the W3C, where they count themselves a member, Apple has determined they retain a competitive advantage by declining to contribute their IP to new web standards. In other words Apple-owned IP the W3C has deemed essential to standards are more valuable to Apple if they aren't FRAND-pledged. Therefor they have no intention of contributing. Nokia may be coming around to the same view on SEP pledges.

If you're not familiar with the issue I'll be happy to offer you a link to the discussion.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #235 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


There's a more recent story that provides details.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/05/samsungs-vetoed-push-for-an-itc-ban-against-apple-inc-in-pictures

In particular, this story answers virtually every single point made by our local shills and trolls.

 

No it doesn't. You can't answer the shills as they refuse to listen to logic. And they claim Apple users are living in the "reality distortion field".

post #236 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Nokia might be bluffing, but they claim they are no longer contributing to some standards due to SEP enforcement problems.
 

 

Of course Nokia would say that. Once a world leader they are now almost irrelevant in smartphone sales. You know the old saying "a wounded animal is the most dangerous". Nokia is lashing out and their opinions on SEP's can't be taken seriously considering their position. Same holds true for Motorola, Blackberry and Ericsson.

post #237 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Nokia is saying their patents are more valuable and enforceable if they aren't FRAND-committed.

That's only true if they intend to abuse the SEPs. If they don't, nothing has changed.
post #238 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple has the same general view on IP and FRAND-pledged contributions don't they? W3C has tried for some time to get Apple to contribute their applicable patents to new web standards and Apple continues to resist. So far Apple's way seems to work well for them. Perhaps Nokia is beginning to feel the same way.

Need to know the specifics. The patent Samsung used to hit Apple is just a small, peripheral patent in the standards. That's why they are willing to license it out under FRAND terms.

Without knowing what W3C want, and the implication to Apple, we won't be able to attach any value to your statement.

Even if Apple refused, W3C still found ways to advance its standards without relying on shady, contentious SEPs. This is safer than companies trying to get their patents into SEP pool in the hope of screwing their competition in the future.

Edit:
The veto is consistent with EU's stance although the approach is different. In EU, not only the SEP was not enforceable, Samsung get sued by the government for abusing it. In US, the system is "kind" enough for the issue to escalate to the President. There is no antitrust investigation on Samsung.
Edited by patsu - 8/5/13 at 10:39am
post #239 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsu View Post

Need to know the specifics. The patent Samsung used to hit Apple is just a small, peripheral patent in the standards. That's why they are willing to license it out under FRAND terms.

Without knowing what W3C want, and the implication to Apple, we won't be able to attach any value to your statement.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/apples-latest-patent-foe-world-wide-web.html

"Apple is a member of the W3C and, in that role, disclosed the fact that it holds one U.S. patent and one U.S. patent application that Apple believes read on the W3c's "Widget Access Requests Policy" specification. At the same time, Apple exercised its right to withhold those intellectual property rights. In other words, Apple refuses to make those rights available on the W3C's liberal terms. Simply put, Apple doesn't want to be restricted in any way and may want to assert those patents in its various lawsuits.

This means the W3C can't formally adopt the "infringing" specification because its rules require patent-free or at least royalty-free standards. For now the Widget Access Request Policy is just a candidate recommendation, not a final specification yet.

If a patent holder refuses to accept the W3C's terms, the W3C may try to have that patent invalidated (or a patent application rejected). If that effort succeeds, the specification is, again, patent-unencumbered. If not, the W3C can still evaluate possible workarounds or, if there's no workaround, give up on a standard.

In this case, the W3C hopes to do away with Apple's relevant patent and patent application. It's an unpleasant situation for the W3C to have to confront one of its members, especially such a large and powerful one, but sometimes this can't be avoided."

"This isn't the only issue in connection with which Apple favors the rights of patent holders over unencumbered standards: the W3C's rigid "royalty-free" policy is also a big problem in the debate over video codecs -- MPEG LA vs. the Google-led WebM. "

" I (Mueller) guess the W3C is going to find it increasingly difficult to develop standards under its policy. There's still going to be some interest among industry players in the W3C's ability to develop its standards, but a company like Apple is certainly not the most generous contributor of patents to "free" standards, to put it mildly."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #240 of 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/apples-latest-patent-foe-world-wide-web.html

"Apple is a member of the W3C and, in that role, disclosed the fact that it holds one U.S. patent and one U.S. patent application that Apple believes read on the W3c's "Widget Access Requests Policy" specification. At the same time, Apple exercised its right to withhold those intellectual property rights. In other words, Apple refuses to make those rights available on the W3C's liberal terms. Simply put, Apple doesn't want to be restricted in any way and may want to assert those patents in its various lawsuits.

This means the W3C can't formally adopt the "infringing" specification because its rules require patent-free or at least royalty-free standards. For now the Widget Access Request Policy is just a candidate recommendation, not a final specification yet.

If a patent holder refuses to accept the W3C's terms, the W3C may try to have that patent invalidated (or a patent application rejected). If that effort succeeds, the specification is, again, patent-unencumbered. If not, the W3C can still evaluate possible workarounds or, if there's no workaround, give up on a standard.

In this case, the W3C hopes to do away with Apple's relevant patent and patent application. It's an unpleasant situation for the W3C to have to confront one of its members, especially such a large and powerful one, but sometimes this can't be avoided."

"This isn't the only issue in connection with which Apple favors the rights of patent holders over unencumbered standards: the W3C's rigid "royalty-free" policy is also a big problem in the debate over video codecs -- MPEG LA vs. the Google-led WebM. "

" I (Mueller) guess the W3C is going to find it increasingly difficult to develop standards under its policy. There's still going to be some interest among industry players in the W3C's ability to develop its standards, but a company like Apple is certainly not the most generous contributor of patents to "free" standards, to put it mildly."

EDIT: By the way, there is a subtle difference between FRAND-pledged and standard-essential IP. I've mistakenly mixed the two in the same discussion on occasion myself including in a previous post in this thread.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › President Obama vetoes Samsung ban on Apple, Inc. iPhones, iPads