I don't think FRAND is a legal definition -- as opposed to a body of legal precedents.
As I understand it, a company spends resources ($ and time) developing a technology -- like 3G. Then, to:
1) recover the cost of their investment
2) maintain their competive lead in the technology in question
They offer the tech as a FRAND standard.
...they can't maximize the bucks -- but they can pay the freight and maintain a tech lead.
Apple offered Darwin and WebKit as free (FRAND-like) tech to further the use of the tech -- because it was to Apple's advantage to do so.
But Apple, and others, can also develop tech that they believe provides them a significant advantage by not making it available to others... Their choice.
So, the mixture of FRAND and non-FRAND claims is like trying to play basketball with a lacrosse net and a catchers mitt.
You can't have it both ways!
Let me rephrase my statement. FRAND is not exactly a legal designation. It is a licensing doctrine that applies to standards-essential patents. My statement was in reponse to a poster who claimed that people on this forum go gung ho when Apple sues with a patent but cry foul when other sue Apple, throwing around terms like FRAND.
Standards bodies create standards in order to ensure interoperability. Companies that contribute to standards with patents typically agree to license the patents under FRAND terms because the use of legal roadblocks will hinder the goal of interoperability based on the standard.
Apple has not sued using any standards-essential patents. However, Samsung and Motorola have done that. People are just telling it like it is.
When you arbitrarily pick dates to try to make a point.
Like saying that Android phones have only been around for 2 years when they've really been around for almost twice that.
Huh? Go back and reread my post if you think I ever said the first Android phone was released 2 years ago. Remember your reading comprehension digs? Read more carefully.
I was trying to help you and any other interested readers understand one possible reason for the differences in revenue figures between Android and iOS. One was commercially successful long before the other (in fact having even a single product long before the other), but you keep trying to confuse casual readers by intimating that they had the same history and successful product release timelines.
Let me rephrase my statement. FRAND is not exactly a legal designation. It is a licensing doctrine that applies to standards-essential patents. My statement was in reponse to a poster who claimed that people on this forum go gung ho when Apple sues with a patent but cry foul when other sue Apple, throwing around terms like FRAND.
Standards bodies create standards in order to ensure interoperability. Companies that contribute to standards with patents typically agree to license the patents under FRAND terms because the use of legal roadblocks will hinder the goal of interoperability based on the standard.
Apple has not sued using any standards-essential patents. However, Samsung and Motorola have done that. People are just telling it like it is.
Let me rephrase my statement. FRAND is not exactly a legal designation. It is a licensing doctrine that applies to standards-essential patents. My statement was in reponse to a poster who claimed that people on this forum go gung ho when Apple sues with a patent but cry foul when other sue Apple, throwing around terms like FRAND.
Standards bodies create standards in order to ensure interoperability. Companies that contribute to standards with patents typically agree to license the patents under FRAND terms because the use of legal roadblocks will hinder the goal of interoperability based on the standard.
Apple has not sued using any standards-essential patents. However, Samsung and Motorola have done that. People are just telling it like it is.
What's not been made clear is why Samsung or Motorola would feel they have the legal right to withhold a standards license for Apple or require extended negotiations for one in the first place. Do a search for the legal term "defensive suspension" as it applies to standards-essential patent licenses. It might reveal some details that one of our favorite patent bloggers hasn't yet mentioned.
Comments
I don't think FRAND is a legal definition -- as opposed to a body of legal precedents.
As I understand it, a company spends resources ($ and time) developing a technology -- like 3G. Then, to:
1) recover the cost of their investment
2) maintain their competive lead in the technology in question
They offer the tech as a FRAND standard.
...they can't maximize the bucks -- but they can pay the freight and maintain a tech lead.
Apple offered Darwin and WebKit as free (FRAND-like) tech to further the use of the tech -- because it was to Apple's advantage to do so.
But Apple, and others, can also develop tech that they believe provides them a significant advantage by not making it available to others... Their choice.
So, the mixture of FRAND and non-FRAND claims is like trying to play basketball with a lacrosse net and a catchers mitt.
You can't have it both ways!
Let me rephrase my statement. FRAND is not exactly a legal designation. It is a licensing doctrine that applies to standards-essential patents. My statement was in reponse to a poster who claimed that people on this forum go gung ho when Apple sues with a patent but cry foul when other sue Apple, throwing around terms like FRAND.
Standards bodies create standards in order to ensure interoperability. Companies that contribute to standards with patents typically agree to license the patents under FRAND terms because the use of legal roadblocks will hinder the goal of interoperability based on the standard.
Apple has not sued using any standards-essential patents. However, Samsung and Motorola have done that. People are just telling it like it is.
When you arbitrarily pick dates to try to make a point.
Like saying that Android phones have only been around for 2 years when they've really been around for almost twice that.
Huh? Go back and reread my post if you think I ever said the first Android phone was released 2 years ago. Remember your reading comprehension digs? Read more carefully.
I was trying to help you and any other interested readers understand one possible reason for the differences in revenue figures between Android and iOS. One was commercially successful long before the other (in fact having even a single product long before the other), but you keep trying to confuse casual readers by intimating that they had the same history and successful product release timelines.
Let me rephrase my statement. FRAND is not exactly a legal designation. It is a licensing doctrine that applies to standards-essential patents. My statement was in reponse to a poster who claimed that people on this forum go gung ho when Apple sues with a patent but cry foul when other sue Apple, throwing around terms like FRAND.
Standards bodies create standards in order to ensure interoperability. Companies that contribute to standards with patents typically agree to license the patents under FRAND terms because the use of legal roadblocks will hinder the goal of interoperability based on the standard.
Apple has not sued using any standards-essential patents. However, Samsung and Motorola have done that. People are just telling it like it is.
I agree with all that!
I agree with all that!
Me to.
Let me rephrase my statement. FRAND is not exactly a legal designation. It is a licensing doctrine that applies to standards-essential patents. My statement was in reponse to a poster who claimed that people on this forum go gung ho when Apple sues with a patent but cry foul when other sue Apple, throwing around terms like FRAND.
Standards bodies create standards in order to ensure interoperability. Companies that contribute to standards with patents typically agree to license the patents under FRAND terms because the use of legal roadblocks will hinder the goal of interoperability based on the standard.
Apple has not sued using any standards-essential patents. However, Samsung and Motorola have done that. People are just telling it like it is.
What's not been made clear is why Samsung or Motorola would feel they have the legal right to withhold a standards license for Apple or require extended negotiations for one in the first place. Do a search for the legal term "defensive suspension" as it applies to standards-essential patent licenses. It might reveal some details that one of our favorite patent bloggers hasn't yet mentioned.
Judge Posner has now tossed out some of Apple's infringement claims attached to patent '949, touchscreen heuristics.