Not going to derail the conversation here even further but no court or even US Trade Representative has said injunctions for SEP infringement aren't permitted.
A court already said that. See Microsoft vs. Motorola case decided by Judge Robart, particularly the anti-injunction injunction ruling from late last year.
A court already said that. See Microsoft vs. Motorola case decided by Judge Robart, particularly the anti-injunction injunction ruling from late last year.
Well since you already know where to find it there shouldn't be any trouble at all quoting the part where he says SEP injunctions are never appropriate, which would show me to be wrong. I'll wait.
You might be right. Now isn't the best time to be an SEP licensor. What was common and acceptable licensing and royalties five years or more ago when the standards were established isn't as acceptable any longer.
Please show me any case where a licensor like Motorola could have received anywhere near the amount they were asking from Microsoft. And I don't want to see some stupid chart with percentages - I want to see dollar figures. Percentages mean nothing as it doesn't show other details like rate changes vs units sold (quantity discount) or caps on fees (like MPEG-LA has).
If Motorola was indeed making so much money from licensing patents to other companies at the rate they were going to charge MS then they wouldn't have had to sell out to Google - they'd be swimming in royalty cash.
Punishment for infringement of standards-essential patents != punishment for non-standards essential patents.
PATENTS UNDERSTANDING FAIL.
there is no set punishment for SEP infringement. In fact, contrary to Apple's claims, there is nothing preventing/discouraging SEP holders from seeking injunctive relief.
I thought you were commenting on Samsung but I guess you want to flip the page to MM now? I've no idea nor even know why that matters in the context of the discussion you and I were having. If you want to kmow if it was common for what once was Motorola to use 2.25% of the device cost as the initial royalty basis I believe I've come across that claim before. I'd suggest just looking for yourself. It will much more believable than telling you something coming from things I've come across.
I know for a fact that Qualcomm's stated Standard-essential royalties are based on 3%+ of the finished device cost whether a Qualcomm chip set is used or not. Is that helpful?
EDIT: I just became aware of another SEP-related case that could significantly impact future FRAND-licensing royalty negotiations. Qualcomm and Nokia among others will be paying close attention: What is the smallest patent practicing unit that an SEP royalty can be based on?
there is no set punishment for SEP infringement. In fact, contrary to Apple's claims, there is nothing preventing/discouraging SEP holders from seeking injunctive relief.
Yes there is. It's this little thing called "making a FRAND offer". You can't make an offer that's so ridiculous that no company would ever accept it and then try and use their refusal to accept extortionist demands as a reason to seek an injunction.
Even the companies that think injunctions are OK mostly agree that they should be used when attempts to negotiate a license have failed. And you can't go for the injunction first and use that as a hammer to extort higher fees.
EU has more balls than the US courts. Look at what they did to Microsoft. $250,000,000 / day fine until M$ came up with a version of Windows without IE installed by default. They made M$ change Windows who ended up putting a window up at install time asking which browser they wanted as default.
IE's hold of the internet has been falling ever since admittedly part of that is that people are using WebKit based browsers in their phones but still.
18.3 billion is not small change to Samsung. It's not small change to Apple either.
Comments
A court already said that. See Microsoft vs. Motorola case decided by Judge Robart, particularly the anti-injunction injunction ruling from late last year.
ITC case number 337-794
It received lots of coverage so I'm sure you know of it.
Learn the difference between the Executive and the Judiciary. You can look it up, you know.
Please stop being idiotic. Learn the difference between the Executive and the Judiciary. You can look it up, you know.
Someone needs a hug!
You might be right. Now isn't the best time to be an SEP licensor. What was common and acceptable licensing and royalties five years or more ago when the standards were established isn't as acceptable any longer.
Please show me any case where a licensor like Motorola could have received anywhere near the amount they were asking from Microsoft. And I don't want to see some stupid chart with percentages - I want to see dollar figures. Percentages mean nothing as it doesn't show other details like rate changes vs units sold (quantity discount) or caps on fees (like MPEG-LA has).
If Motorola was indeed making so much money from licensing patents to other companies at the rate they were going to charge MS then they wouldn't have had to sell out to Google - they'd be swimming in royalty cash.
ITC Judge != U.S. COURT.
Standards-Essential Patents != Non-Standards Essential patents.
Punishment for infringement of standards-essential patents != punishment for non-standards essential patents.
PATENTS UNDERSTANDING FAIL.
there is no set punishment for SEP infringement. In fact, contrary to Apple's claims, there is nothing preventing/discouraging SEP holders from seeking injunctive relief.
I know for a fact that Qualcomm's stated Standard-essential royalties are based on 3%+ of the finished device cost whether a Qualcomm chip set is used or not. Is that helpful?
EDIT: I just became aware of another SEP-related case that could significantly impact future FRAND-licensing royalty negotiations. Qualcomm and Nokia among others will be paying close attention: What is the smallest patent practicing unit that an SEP royalty can be based on?
[B]"Essentially, the court is trying to determine if the appropriate royalty base in this case should be the price of (1) a WiFi chip; (2) a device (e.g., a router) incorporating a WiFi chip; or (3) multiple WiFi-compliant devices — or whether the RAND royalty should be calculated in another manner."[/B]
http://essentialpatentblog.com/2013/09/appropriate-royalty-base-for-standard-essential-patents-a-disputed-issue-in-innovatio-ip-ventures-bench-trial/
there is no set punishment for SEP infringement. In fact, contrary to Apple's claims, there is nothing preventing/discouraging SEP holders from seeking injunctive relief.
Yes there is. It's this little thing called "making a FRAND offer". You can't make an offer that's so ridiculous that no company would ever accept it and then try and use their refusal to accept extortionist demands as a reason to seek an injunction.
Even the companies that think injunctions are OK mostly agree that they should be used when attempts to negotiate a license have failed. And you can't go for the injunction first and use that as a hammer to extort higher fees.
IE's hold of the internet has been falling ever since admittedly part of that is that people are using WebKit based browsers in their phones but still.
18.3 billion is not small change to Samsung. It's not small change to Apple either.
Huh? $1.5 a day.
Please stop being idiotic. Learn the difference between the Executive and the Judiciary. You can look it up, you know.
Please stop being disrespectful.