How is ETSI FRAND in any way relevant to slide to unlock?
I'm talking about how royalties are determined by courts. For both back-awards and for FRAND determinations, courts often start with royalty determination based upon the patent's contribution to the whole.
When trying to get more money from others in trials, Apple's lawyers claim that their patents are worth a great deal, even if they contribute little and have workarounds.
Yet, when the situation is reversed, suddenly any patent is worth only the tiniest amount, according to its percentage of contribution.
It's natural to want to get paid the most and pay out the least, but it's also incredibly hypocritical. As
Foss Patents put it:
"
Only because Judge Koh is much more permissive with respect to damages claims than Judge Alsup (in the same district), Apple apparently didn't have to explain this striking contradiction between its "royalty base" position and its damages claims in the ongoing trial. "
This obviously does not work for standards, so standards organisations demand restrictions in exercising these exclusive rights.
I already posted the ETSI FRAND agreement above. The only restriction that standards organization requires, is that anyone can license the IP and it cannot be withdrawn later on.
That Apple has been paying a percentage of the end product for IP does not mean that ever thought it is "right", it does not mean that they will, or should, continue to leave that unchallenged.
I agree. Apple may very well be in the right... at least in today's legal atmosphere. However, there is no denying that they wish to be treated differently from all the other licensees that came before them.
Ericsson thinks that their IP is worth $2 in a cheap Android, $20 in an iPhone and if Bugatti were to use the same chip in their cars the same IP would be worth $5000.
Nope. The royalty would only be a percentage of the cellular radio unit installed in the Bugatti, not of the vehicle itself.
Patents and standards exist for a purpose.
Yes, to let others see the methods, and for the inventor to have an exclusive chance to recoup their investment. In the case of ETSI members, we're talking decades and billions spent on R&D.
If those that are tasked to guard this purpose, the standards organizations, think that a different pricing method than has been used in the past better serves this purpose, a judge might be inclined to agree more with the standards organizations, than with the inventors.
Except that ETSI is the standards organization in question, and they do not agree with the IEEE, which has its own agenda.
Mind you, I think that a different method is in order. As I said, it'll be interesting to see if courts are willing to strip apart a royalty method that has been used for decades in this field... or if they'll simply decide on a lower percentage to compensate.
