Making SEP patents toothless is only going to hurt everyone in the long run.
You are supposed to be forced to share them, but also make money on them.
If the general rule becomes that SEP patents are worthless compared to design patents of even the most trivial thing, there is going to be little incentive to pursue SEP patents anymore.
Samsung already has prototype 5G wireless protocols capable of running at gigabit speeds.
Google is working on its own as well.
If Android is approaching 70-80% wireless share, they really don't need to get several vendors and networks to all get together and agree on a standard- whatever they choose *is* the standard.
So Google patents its wireless standard as its own patent rather than a SEP and Android users get gigabit speeds and everyone else is left on snail networks. I hope Apple is busy working on its own standard as well. Everyone agreeing to share things that make sense for everyone to share just doesn't seem like it is going to work.
SEP's aren't toothless. If you have SEP's related to wireless, then you get royalties on billions of devices per year (literally every single device sold, since they are all based on a standard). Even if your entire portfolio of patents is only worth $0.10 per device that still gives you 100's of millions of dollars per year. That's significant enough for a company to invest in R&D.
Google/Android/Samsung don't decide what the standards are - there are SSO's (standard setting organizations) that do. And Android DOES NOT have 70-80% market share. They might be getting close to that for smartphones, but not every device sold is a smartphone. And of all those Android devices, most of them are NOT running LTE nor would they ever be 5G (or whatever standard comes next). You're also forgetting that wireless companies are getting into providing internet services wirelessly to compete with cable and phone companies. They'll also have a say in which standard will be used for 5G.
If anything, Samsung has screwed themselves over. They have been abusing SEP's. If Samsung and Cisco both have technology for 5G and an SSO has to pick between two equally good systems, who are they going to choose? The company with a proven track record of patent abuse (Samsung) or the company with a firm stance against SEP abuse (Cisco). Samsung is burning bridges with the SSO's in their battle with Apple because of their patent abuse.
So stop with your usual crap of trying to take a minority position and claim it's what everyone thinks.
I didn't say it was what everyone thinks, and no one else in this thread seems to be making such an incorrect assumption.
My post was clearly was detailing only what the EUC and ITC have said, in response to a post that was also only talking about those two entities.
Both the ITC and EUC have made perfectly clear statements that they think that an injunction is allowable if a FRAND licensee is not willing to negotiate. This is an indisputable fact, and it's why willingness and intent are key issues.
--
As for what others think of injunctions over SEPs, even those who think they are generally a bad idea in FRAND cases, do not claim that they're not available at all.
For example, in your favorite recent case, when Judge Robart stopped Motorola's request for an injunction against Microsoft, it was dismissed without prejudice. That means Motorola can try again for an injunction if Microsoft refuses to pay a FRAND royalty. As he put it:
Quote:
"The dismissal is without prejudice.
The court’s determination that injunctive relief is no longer available for the Motorola Asserted Patents is based on the specific circumstances and rulings that have developed in this litigation.
If, in the future, those circumstances change in a manner to warrant injunctive relief, Motorola may at that time seek such relief."
"Indeed, Microsoft, or any other implementer, is not free to infringe Motorola’s standard essential patents, and were that to occur, this court’s ruling with respect to injunctive relief may be different."
Speaking of Microsoft, in their amicus curae brief in support of Apple and against an injunction, they carefully refrained from saying that injunctions were not available. They instead repeated that the eBay four prongs must be met first.
These are facts. I actually read and research the cases. Instead of personal attacks, perhaps you can calmly find facts to support your opinion as well. Thanks.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
Making SEP patents toothless is only going to hurt everyone in the long run.
You are supposed to be forced to share them, but also make money on them.
If the general rule becomes that SEP patents are worthless compared to design patents of even the most trivial thing, there is going to be little incentive to pursue SEP patents anymore.
Samsung already has prototype 5G wireless protocols capable of running at gigabit speeds.
Google is working on its own as well.
If Android is approaching 70-80% wireless share, they really don't need to get several vendors and networks to all get together and agree on a standard- whatever they choose *is* the standard.
So Google patents its wireless standard as its own patent rather than a SEP and Android users get gigabit speeds and everyone else is left on snail networks. I hope Apple is busy working on its own standard as well. Everyone agreeing to share things that make sense for everyone to share just doesn't seem like it is going to work.
SEP's aren't toothless. If you have SEP's related to wireless, then you get royalties on billions of devices per year (literally every single device sold, since they are all based on a standard). Even if your entire portfolio of patents is only worth $0.10 per device that still gives you 100's of millions of dollars per year. That's significant enough for a company to invest in R&D.
Google/Android/Samsung don't decide what the standards are - there are SSO's (standard setting organizations) that do. And Android DOES NOT have 70-80% market share. They might be getting close to that for smartphones, but not every device sold is a smartphone. And of all those Android devices, most of them are NOT running LTE nor would they ever be 5G (or whatever standard comes next). You're also forgetting that wireless companies are getting into providing internet services wirelessly to compete with cable and phone companies. They'll also have a say in which standard will be used for 5G.
If anything, Samsung has screwed themselves over. They have been abusing SEP's. If Samsung and Cisco both have technology for 5G and an SSO has to pick between two equally good systems, who are they going to choose? The company with a proven track record of patent abuse (Samsung) or the company with a firm stance against SEP abuse (Cisco). Samsung is burning bridges with the SSO's in their battle with Apple because of their patent abuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
So stop with your usual crap of trying to take a minority position and claim it's what everyone thinks.
I didn't say it was what everyone thinks, and no one else in this thread seems to be making such an incorrect assumption.
My post was clearly was detailing only what the EUC and ITC have said, in response to a post that was also only talking about those two entities.
Both the ITC and EUC have made perfectly clear statements that they think that an injunction is allowable if a FRAND licensee is not willing to negotiate. This is an indisputable fact, and it's why willingness and intent are key issues.
--
As for what others think of injunctions over SEPs, even those who think they are generally a bad idea in FRAND cases, do not claim that they're not available at all.
For example, in your favorite recent case, when Judge Robart stopped Motorola's request for an injunction against Microsoft, it was dismissed without prejudice. That means Motorola can try again for an injunction if Microsoft refuses to pay a FRAND royalty. As he put it:
Quote:
"The dismissal is without prejudice.
The court’s determination that injunctive relief is no longer available for the Motorola Asserted Patents is based on the specific circumstances and rulings that have developed in this litigation.
If, in the future, those circumstances change in a manner to warrant injunctive relief, Motorola may at that time seek such relief."
- Judge Robart
He also noted that:
Quote:
"Indeed, Microsoft, or any other implementer, is not free to infringe Motorola’s standard essential patents, and were that to occur, this court’s ruling with respect to injunctive relief may be different."
Speaking of Microsoft, in their amicus curae brief in support of Apple and against an injunction, they carefully refrained from saying that injunctions were not available. They instead repeated that the eBay four prongs must be met first.
These are facts. I actually read and research the cases. Instead of personal attacks, perhaps you can calmly find facts to support your opinion as well. Thanks.
Yawn. More signal less noiseTS!
So you've no comment on how what I said is correct.