Even Apple has never taken the position that injunctions involving SEP's are never an appropriate remedy.
Perhaps there's a reason for that too. Rockstar, the Apple led consortium that purchased the Nortel patent portfolio including extensive SEP's has placed some number of patents with a new "Patent assertion entity" ( ie patent troll) with the first lawsuits announced to begin within 60 days. It should be exciting.
As a bonus guess who invested in that new "Patent Assertion Entity" just to be sure those patents are properly pointed in the right directions?
As long as they don't abuse the SEPs, who cares how they manage the patents ? Last I heard they have also transferred some of these patents to themselves, but we have seen no action yet.
At this point, before the abuse issues get settled, it is wise for Apple to not agree to anything yet. Otherwise, they will be bound by what they sign. The rest becomes rhetoric.
As long as they don't abuse the SEPs, who cares how they manage the patents ?
Perhaps the FTC or DoJ might care. Too early to tell. With the current wave of concern over software patent issues in the tech industry the public statements from Rockstar Consortium's CEO are a potential problem. During an SEP-centric hearing in Washington a few months back some of those concerns over his statements were raised and it appears that there's at least a couple of issues at hand.
One is that RC suggests that they do not have to honor the licensing agreements attached to those transferred Nortel patents, SEP or not. That raised some eyebrows and suggestions that the government needs to address it in any SEP rule-making.
Secondly he claims he's not bound by the agreement Apple, MS, et.al. made with the government to get their approval to bid on the patents in the first place. Even tho Apple and company made promises not to use those patents to aggressively attack rivals, stating they would fairly license them to competitors, CEO Veschi claims those promises don't apply to anything he decides to do with them. Only the companies that made the promises in the first place have to keep their agreement, not Rockstar Consortium.
Perhaps the FTC or DoJ might care. Too early to tell. With the current wave of concern over software patent issues in the tech industry the public statements from Rockstar Consortium's CEO are a potential problem. During an SEP-centric hearing in Washington a few months back some of those concerns over his statements were raised and it appears that there's at least a couple of issues at hand.
One is that RC suggests that they do not have to honor the licensing agreements attached to those transferred Nortel patents, SEP or not. That raised some eyebrows and suggestions that the government needs to address it in any SEP rule-making.
Secondly he claims he's not bound by the agreement Apple, MS, et.al. made with the government to get their approval to bid on the patents in the first place. Even tho Apple and company made promises not to use those patents to aggressively attack rivals, stating they would fairly license them to competitors, CEO Veschi claims those promises don't apply to anything he decides to do with them. Only the companies that made the promises in the first place have to keep their agreement, not Rockstar Consortium.
Might get interesting.
As long as the principles are established and accepted, it is not uncommon for companies to update their licensing terms for new or renewing licensees. There is nothing to act on at this point though.
As long as the principles are established and accepted, it is not uncommon for companies to update their licensing terms for new or renewing licensees. There is nothing to act on at this point though.
Not sure what mean. What principles are you referencing? The principle that existing patent license agreements and FRAND commitments should transfer with the patents?
Not sure what mean. What principles are you referencing? The principle that existing patent license agreements and FRAND commitments should transfer with the patents?
e.g., The principle that they won't abuse the SEPs.
As for the agreements, companies update them from time to time based on the latest cost structure, business model, usage etc.
Typically, new and renewing licensees will be subjected to the new terms. Old licensees stay put as long as the agreements remain valid (e.g., have not expired).
The administrator veto'ed the ban based on their stand on the SEP abuse. The rep simply layout their broad stroke position.
Companies should not accept any terms based on SEP abuse before the fundamental principles are settled. Accept the terms would imply that the current SEP abuse is acceptable to the signing parties.
The SEP abuse caused public concerns. That's why people are debating everywhere. And other companies are lining up to object to the ban.
Look hard, but you wont' find any assertion by either the US Trade Representative nor the ITC that Samsung was abusing FRAND commitments in this particular case. (Doesn't mean I like Samsung any better) On the contrary the only company found to be abusing the FRAND process was Apple, thus the original ITC injunction order. In his letter overturning the order Mr Fromer never suggests that Samsung abused it's FRAND obligations in the case against Apple. That seems to arise from a few folk, including Mr Mueller, who wished he had said that.
In any event overturning the ITC order was the proper move IMHO, and for exactly the reasons stated in the order. The public interest was not served by letting it go into effect.
e.g., The principle that they won't abuse the SEPs.
As for the agreements, companies update them from time to time based on the latest cost structure, business model, usage etc.
Typically, new and renewing licensees will be subjected to the new terms. Old licensees stay put as long as the agreements remain valid (e.g., have not expired).
It's a non-news.
On the contrary, the RC CEO suggests that existing, current, non-expired agreements can be tossed. It's not about normally scheduled renewals or new licensees and I think you knew that.
Do you personally feel that if a patent is committed to FRAND, included in standard-essential agreements and licensed as such, that any purchaser of that patent should be bound to honor that commitment? How about patents in general, SEP or not. If a company has an existing license to a set of patents that end up sold to another company does that mean the license should no longer be valid? I'll wait for your answer. Take your time to think about it.
Look hard, but you wont' find any assertion by either the US Trade Representative nor the ITC that Samsung was abusing FRAND commitments in this particular case. (Doesn't mean I like Samsung any better) On the contrary the only company found to be abusing the FRAND process was Apple, thus the original ITC injunction order. In his letter overturning the order Mr Fromer never suggests that Samsung abused it's FRAND obligations in the case against Apple. That seems to arise from a few folk, including Mr Mueller, who wished he had said that.
In any event overturning the ITC order was the proper move IMHO, and for exactly the reasons stated in the order. The public interest was not served by letting it go into effect.
As long as the SEPs are abused, I don't think Apple will agree to sign anything.
ITC may want to think about their position, when and how to enforce so-called FRAND. At the moment, it looks like the Whitehouse and the supporting companies agree with Apple. If/when the import ban threat becomes ineffective, the negotiation may happen differently. I don't know what Samsung and Apple will do next. May be fight it out in the courts, may be settle. But it would be nice if ITC review their position on SEPs.
On the contrary, the RC CEO suggests that existing, current, non-expired agreements can be tossed. It's not about normally scheduled renewals or new licensees and I think you knew that. Do you personally feel that if a patent is committed to FRAND, included in standard-essential agreements and licensed as such, that any purchaser of that patent should be bound to honor that commitment?
If the companies are suing each other, then there may be clauses that the agreements may be terminated. In fact, there are usually termination clauses in agreements. It would be case by case.
As long as the SEPs are abused, I don't think Apple will agree to sign anything. .
Neither Mr Fromer or the ITC said that Samsung abused the FRAND patent process with Apple in this specific case. That's why the trade rep said each case would have to be decided on it's own merits. On the other hand Apple was found to abuse it.
Neither Mr Fromer or the ITC said that Samsung abused the FRAND patent process with Apple in this specific case. That's why the trade rep said each case would have to be decided on it's own merits. On the other hand Apple was found to abuse it.
Under the current framework perhaps. But the opposite side are saying the framework (and ITC's thinking) is flawed. The negotiation will work differently if the SEPs cannot be abused to impose import ban at this point.
If the companies are suing each other, then there may be clauses that the agreements may be terminated. In fact, there are usually termination clauses in agreements. It would be case by case.
I didn't suggest that you assume that a licensee was suing a patent holder. You're referring to a specific and somewhat rare situation where "defensive suspension" might apply.
You seem to be avoiding an answer to either question I asked, perhaps thinking it might be an "inconvenient" one. Here's the questions again in case you forgot what they were:
"Do you personally feel that if a patent is committed to FRAND, included in standard-essential agreements and licensed as such, that any purchaser of that patent should be bound to honor that commitment? "
"How about patents in general, SEP or not. If a company has an existing and binding license to a set of patents that end up sold to another company does that mean the license should no longer be valid?"
I didn't suggest that you assume that a licensee was suing a patent holder. Your're referring to a specific situation where "defensive suspension" might apply. You seem to be avoiding an answer to what I asked, perhaps thinking it might be an "inconvenient" one.
I already answered. The agreements will be handled on a case by case basis. The RS guy won't be able to guarantee they all stay the same under this hostile environment. If he wants to change, he will need to look at the termination clauses in these agreements.
I already answered. The agreements will be handled on a case by case basis. The RS guy won't be able to guarantee they all stay the same under this hostile environment. If he wants to change, he will need to look at the termination clauses in these agreements.
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?
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.
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.
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 )
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.
Comments
As long as they don't abuse the SEPs, who cares how they manage the patents ? Last I heard they have also transferred some of these patents to themselves, but we have seen no action yet.
At this point, before the abuse issues get settled, it is wise for Apple to not agree to anything yet. Otherwise, they will be bound by what they sign. The rest becomes rhetoric.
Perhaps the FTC or DoJ might care. Too early to tell. With the current wave of concern over software patent issues in the tech industry the public statements from Rockstar Consortium's CEO are a potential problem. During an SEP-centric hearing in Washington a few months back some of those concerns over his statements were raised and it appears that there's at least a couple of issues at hand.
One is that RC suggests that they do not have to honor the licensing agreements attached to those transferred Nortel patents, SEP or not. That raised some eyebrows and suggestions that the government needs to address it in any SEP rule-making.
Secondly he claims he's not bound by the agreement Apple, MS, et.al. made with the government to get their approval to bid on the patents in the first place. Even tho Apple and company made promises not to use those patents to aggressively attack rivals, stating they would fairly license them to competitors, CEO Veschi claims those promises don't apply to anything he decides to do with them. Only the companies that made the promises in the first place have to keep their agreement, not Rockstar Consortium.
Might get interesting.
As long as the principles are established and accepted, it is not uncommon for companies to update their licensing terms for new or renewing licensees. There is nothing to act on at this point though.
Not sure what mean. What principles are you referencing? The principle that existing patent license agreements and FRAND commitments should transfer with the patents?
Hey I used to love Google, you know … back before the knife in the back.
e.g., The principle that they won't abuse the SEPs.
As for the agreements, companies update them from time to time based on the latest cost structure, business model, usage etc.
Typically, new and renewing licensees will be subjected to the new terms. Old licensees stay put as long as the agreements remain valid (e.g., have not expired).
It's a non-news.
Look hard, but you wont' find any assertion by either the US Trade Representative nor the ITC that Samsung was abusing FRAND commitments in this particular case. (Doesn't mean I like Samsung any better) On the contrary the only company found to be abusing the FRAND process was Apple, thus the original ITC injunction order. In his letter overturning the order Mr Fromer never suggests that Samsung abused it's FRAND obligations in the case against Apple. That seems to arise from a few folk, including Mr Mueller, who wished he had said that.
In any event overturning the ITC order was the proper move IMHO, and for exactly the reasons stated in the order. The public interest was not served by letting it go into effect.
On the contrary, the RC CEO suggests that existing, current, non-expired agreements can be tossed. It's not about normally scheduled renewals or new licensees and I think you knew that.
Do you personally feel that if a patent is committed to FRAND, included in standard-essential agreements and licensed as such, that any purchaser of that patent should be bound to honor that commitment? How about patents in general, SEP or not. If a company has an existing license to a set of patents that end up sold to another company does that mean the license should no longer be valid? I'll wait for your answer. Take your time to think about it.
As long as the SEPs are abused, I don't think Apple will agree to sign anything.
ITC may want to think about their position, when and how to enforce so-called FRAND. At the moment, it looks like the Whitehouse and the supporting companies agree with Apple. If/when the import ban threat becomes ineffective, the negotiation may happen differently. I don't know what Samsung and Apple will do next. May be fight it out in the courts, may be settle. But it would be nice if ITC review their position on SEPs.
If the companies are suing each other, then there may be clauses that the agreements may be terminated. In fact, there are usually termination clauses in agreements. It would be case by case.
Under the current framework perhaps. But the opposite side are saying the framework (and ITC's thinking) is flawed. The negotiation will work differently if the SEPs cannot be abused to impose import ban at this point.
I didn't suggest that you assume that a licensee was suing a patent holder. You're referring to a specific and somewhat rare situation where "defensive suspension" might apply.
You seem to be avoiding an answer to either question I asked, perhaps thinking it might be an "inconvenient" one. Here's the questions again in case you forgot what they were:
"Do you personally feel that if a patent is committed to FRAND, included in standard-essential agreements and licensed as such, that any purchaser of that patent should be bound to honor that commitment? "
"How about patents in general, SEP or not. If a company has an existing and binding license to a set of patents that end up sold to another company does that mean the license should no longer be valid?"
I already answered. The agreements will be handled on a case by case basis. The RS guy won't be able to guarantee they all stay the same under this hostile environment. If he wants to change, he will need to look at the termination clauses in these agreements.
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.
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.
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
Fair enough. I'll note your opinion.
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.