Olteros,
google entered our discussion when it was pointed out that Google is not Moto. Since Google acquired Moto, they are one and the same irregardless of when the actual acquisition took place. why? Because as of today, Google owns Moto and their arsenal of patents, both common and FRAND based.
What I said was "misuse" of FRAND patents, which by classification, require Fair, reasonable and Non discriminatory licensing to a "Essential" patent. Past cases on FRAND have highlighted time and again that "essential" patents can't be circumvented in the implementation of a technology because they are the core of that particular technology. As such, to refuse to license or to hinder the ability of others, in particular a competitor, is strictly prohibited by FRAND. If this occurs, which is the obvious motive behind the Moto charge post-google acquisition, is to deny FRAND from being established with the technologies patented by Moto.
Again Olteros, I shared it was a "misuse" of FRAND. Legality is subjective because there is no way to prevent someone from using an "essential" technology even if a patent exists and is held by one company over another. In the end, the other company will be able to use it the only thing you gain is a royalty derived from a fair and reasonable licencse.
To deny a license of a FRAND classified patent is misuse of the patent. Please read up on it and you shall see as I did when I read up on it, that once a patent is determined to be FRAND patent, you can't prevent others from using it but you can demand a license fee for that patent.
google entered our discussion when it was pointed out that Google is not Moto. Since Google acquired Moto, they are one and the same irregardless of when the actual acquisition took place. why? Because as of today, Google owns Moto and their arsenal of patents, both common and FRAND based.
What I said was "misuse" of FRAND patents, which by classification, require Fair, reasonable and Non discriminatory licensing to a "Essential" patent. Past cases on FRAND have highlighted time and again that "essential" patents can't be circumvented in the implementation of a technology because they are the core of that particular technology. As such, to refuse to license or to hinder the ability of others, in particular a competitor, is strictly prohibited by FRAND. If this occurs, which is the obvious motive behind the Moto charge post-google acquisition, is to deny FRAND from being established with the technologies patented by Moto.
Again Olteros, I shared it was a "misuse" of FRAND. Legality is subjective because there is no way to prevent someone from using an "essential" technology even if a patent exists and is held by one company over another. In the end, the other company will be able to use it the only thing you gain is a royalty derived from a fair and reasonable licencse.
To deny a license of a FRAND classified patent is misuse of the patent. Please read up on it and you shall see as I did when I read up on it, that once a patent is determined to be FRAND patent, you can't prevent others from using it but you can demand a license fee for that patent.
Putting aside Samsung, what has copied Google directly from another competitor?
And where is the sentence that says that Motorola and Samsung are using FRAND patents illegally?
----------
And where has been stated that Motorola is misusing their patents?