U.S. Antitrust Regulators Concerned Over Apple's Interest in Nortel Patents

[dermeister]

Nobody's trying to make companies share their current patents, nor take away their patent rights.

At the same time, the public has a overarching common sense interest in making sure that any company that buys up patents critical to the entire telecommunication industry, will continue to license them for a reasonable fee instead of exercising the right to withhold them from everyone else.


That's why the anti-trust regulators are interested.

Everything in bold is contradictory. Instead of maintaining the charade of private property, why not admit you consider it just to determine who gets to use what based on "need" as decreed via mob rule.

Imagine if Nokia exercised their rights and said, "Apple, we changed our minds. We don't just want GSM/WiFi license fees from you. We've decided to refuse to license our patents to you at all." Goodbye, iPhone.

Notice that you said that nobody is trying to take away patent rights, but here you start a fictional horror story that the regulators must stop from ever taking place by "imagine if Nokia exercised their rights".

If you can't exercise a right, it's just a fiction.

tl;dr -- Courts have ruled that if the intent of buying a large number of patents is to halt any competition in that field, it is a violation of antitrust laws.

Correct. In fact, according to the Sherman Anti-trust Act (1890):

If your prices are too high, you are guilty of monopoly or "intent to monopolize".
If your prices are too low, you are guilty of "unfair competition" or "restraint of trade".
If your prices are the same, you are guilty of "collusion" or "conspiracy".

Anti-trust is a farce.

 

[kdarling]

Notice that you said that nobody is trying to take away patent rights, but here you start a fictional horror story that the regulators must stop from ever taking place by "imagine if Nokia exercised their rights".

I did not say that regulators must stop Nokia from exercising its patent rights. In fact, I was pointing out the raw power such rights give to the original inventor, and the consequences if they use them.

However, Nokia has not tried to use its rights to kill the iPhone outright. Instead, they have offered to license them.

The thread topic is that Apple does not have the same history of patent licensing. In fact, their reputation is quite the opposite, which is why regulators were understandably suspicious.

If you can't exercise a right, it's just a fiction.

That's like a kid claiming it's okay to yell Fire because of First Amendment rights. Rights come with responsibilities.

As I pointed out, BUYING quantities of related patents with the planned intention of stopping competition is illegal and rights do not apply.

Correct. In fact, according to the Sherman Anti-trust Act (1890):

The current patent anti-trust laws stem more from the 1990s, I would say.

Anti-trust is a farce.

Many say that about twenty-year technical patents.

 

[dermeister]

That's like a kid claiming it's okay to yell Fire because of First Amendment rights. Rights come with responsibilities.

No legitimate right comes with anything any "responsibility" or exceptions.

"Freedom of speech" isn't a primary, but a corollary. You can speak all you want, but you have to do so with your own property.

Freedom of speech stops the government from censoring you (assuming you are using your own means), not others (such a the owner of a theatre). A rule against yelling fire in a theatre is not censorship, and has no bearing on freedom of speech or the first amendment. Laws against fraud and libel are not exceptions to freedom of speech either. Speech itself is not the primary, it is merely a tool. A rule/law against yelling fire is not a duty or responsibility or exception to the first amendment or any right. On the contrary, it is a corollary of the right to property and the right to freedom from the damage to your property and/or person by others.

As I pointed out, BUYING quantities of related patents with the planned intention of stopping competition is illegal and rights do not apply.

If you want to be logically consistent, buying something means you presumably own it and can do whatever you like with it, including burying it.

It's clearly illegal under current law. In fact like I pointed out, Anti-trust laws are so farcical that any and every behaviour is technically illegal, which means the law is applied based on the whim of the bureaucracy or agency that is in charge with executing it.

I am simply pointing out how absurd it is, not challenging it on a factual basis. You contradict yourself when you deny that people's property rights are being violated by anti-trust. Clearly they are. You have to basically tie yourself into a pretzel to explain how nobody is infringing on property rights all while the use/purchase/sale/disposal of the particular property in question is being dictated by an agency of the state.

Instead of granting these patents and then arbitrarily managing their use, it's better to lay more conditions on the patents themselves at the outset so that everybody knows exactly what their property is. For example, grant a patent that allows the holding company to license the technology for some maximum price to whoever wants it. I don't think it's a good idea, but it's better than what we have now. Currently, someone gets a patent, but then has to walk a tight-rope act in front of the regulators without ever really knowing what he can do.

The current patent holder must consider: what if the regulators think I'm too "big"? What if they think I make too much money? What if they think I have too much of the market? What if there are no alternatives to my patent? What if too many people are using it? What if my price is too high? What if the regulator has an axe to grind?

Just end the charade. Either patents are what their are defined as, or they should be restructured in a way that everybody knows exactly what they allow and the regulatory cat & mouse game ends.

 

[kdarling]

No legitimate right comes with anything any "responsibility" or exceptions.

Yes, "rights" is misleading. But it's the wording used in the Constitution where it gives Congress the power to confer them.

If you want to be logically consistent, buying something means you presumably own it and can do whatever you like with it, including burying it.

Logically consistent but ignores real life. There are many things we can buy but cannot do whatever we like with.

I am simply pointing out how absurd it is, not challenging it on a factual basis. You contradict yourself when you deny that people's property rights are being violated by anti-trust. Clearly they are.

Not if I don't own that property yet. Stopping me from buying something isn't the same as trying to dictate what I can do afterwards.

Instead of granting these patents and then arbitrarily managing their use, it's better to lay more conditions on the patents themselves at the outset so that everybody knows exactly what their property is.

Perhaps so.

The current patent holder must consider: what if the regulators think I'm too "big"? What if they think I make too much money? ...

As I've been saying, the regulators are not abridging the rights of anyone keeping their own inventions to themselves.

For anti-trust, the situation is quite different and seems pretty clear, simple and fair:

If a set of patents you didn't invent has been licensed for some time to help grow an entire industry, then it's illegal to come in and buy up those patents with the intention to use that newly purchased power to shut everyone else down.

Cheers!

 

[dermeister]

Not if I don't own that property yet. Stopping me from buying something isn't the same as trying to dictate what I can do afterwards.

Stopping someone from buying something necessarily involves stopping someone else (the presumed owner, who is supposed to have the right of use, sale, and disposal) from selling it. It's even ironic, since you have the spectacle of an "anti-trust" enforcer dictating who has the right to engage in which commercial transactions, at what price, and under what terms. The only entity acting like a "monopolist" is really the anti-trust enforcer.

As I've been saying, the regulators are not abridging the rights of anyone keeping their own inventions to themselves.

For anti-trust, the situation is quite different and seems pretty clear, simple and fair:

If a set of patents you didn't invent has been licensed for some time to help grow an entire industry, then it's illegal to come in and buy up those patents with the intention to use that newly purchased power to shut everyone else down.

Isn't the clearer solution for those industries to demand long-term guarantees of future licensing under the contracts they sign with the holder? If the patents are so important, that's all the more reason for the contracts to me long-sighted.

At that point, any attempt to stop licensing would be in explicit breach of contract, a fact that we could all agree upon, and the courts would be able to clearly determine this.

It's sort of like you renting your house to someone, them getting a job in the neighbourhood, and when you don't want to rent it out the next year they argue that you can't do that, since they've built their livelihood on the mistaken premise that they you would allow the house to be rented forever.

The reason industries aren't careful about securing such assurances to make sure they don't build on a false premise (perpetual licensing) is in part that they know that they can always go to the anti-trust regulators and stop the owner from ceasing to license or altering the terms upon renewal. It's a value-for-free policy, enabled by the charade of anti-trust.

Without the regulators, you could be sure that companies would take care of making sure they have long-term agreements before committing themselves to long-term strategies based on licensed technology.

Again, not arguing some patents aren't ridiculous, or that entire industries haven't stupidly placed themselves at the whim of patent-holders and anti-trust regulators based on the current patent/anti-trust regime.

I'm just explaining where we have gone wrong and why we are facing so many contradictions where there should be none.

 

[vvswarup]

If a set of patents you didn't invent has been licensed for some time to help grow an entire industry, then it's illegal to come in and buy up those patents with the intention to use that newly purchased power to shut everyone else down.

Why can't "everyone else" innovate around the patented technology? They can put their resources into coming up with something so good that they can tell the patent owner to commit an anatomically difficult act.

 

[vvswarup]

Apple has a history of not letting other companies use the patents that could be another huge reason not to let them have them.

What patented technology has Apple not let others use?

Are you sure you're not confusing Apple's refusal to license Mac OS or iOS (like Windows does) with a refusal to license patents?

 

[layte]

What patented technology has Apple not let others use?

Are you sure you're not confusing Apple's refusal to license Mac OS or iOS (like Windows does) with a refusal to license patents?

I'm pretty sure companies tried to license Fair Play in the past only to be told to go away.

 

[0815]

If they choice is that a company like Apple/Google buys them and makes good use of them in the next generation of proudcts or if a company like Lodsys buys them and uses them only for suing others that do similar things .... I would prefer Apple/Google. Preferable would be if all the bigger phone manufactures would get together and buy them to 'share' - after all it's nothing they invented, but want to use (ok, I'm dreaming now, but would be nice)

 

[jerdawge]

Think first before you post

Man, it hurts my eyes to see some of the glaring mistakes of grammar in some of these posts. I suppose this is the price of technology, that written communication is being destroyed in the process.

 

[vvswarup]

I'm pretty sure companies tried to license Fair Play in the past only to be told to go away.

FairPlay wasn't even a patented technology, according to sources I checked. Apple was sued for patent infringement in FairPlay, which Apple legitimately created.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Why can't "everyone else" innovate around the patented technology? They can put their resources into coming up with something so good that they can tell the patent owner to commit an anatomically difficult act.

easier said that done and if it was a tech you have been using for a long time that can hurt you because you are forced off the market while you invent a way around it.

Also even if Apple was force to keep licenses to companies that already had the deals they could block new players from entering.

What patented technology has Apple not let others use?

Are you sure you're not confusing Apple's refusal to license Mac OS or iOS (like Windows does) with a refusal to license patents?

Go look at Apples Law suits against HTC Nokia and Samsung. They all deal with Apple patents.

 

[Snowy_River]

No legitimate right comes with anything any "responsibility" or exceptions...

I must seriously disagree with this comment. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Let's take a look at some of what might be considered the most fundamental rights:

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life: While this remains a debate in most places around the world, if someone egregiously abuses the responsibility of respecting other people's lives (i.e. kills a bunch of people, or maybe even just one person), there are plenty of places in the U.S. where they lose their right to life.

Liberty: This is a really easy one. Anyone who breaks the law and is sentenced to time in prison loses their right to liberty, for a period of time, at least.

Pursuit of Happiness: Here we get kind of fuzzy. Suppose I define the pursuit of happiness as the effort to sleep with as many women as I possibly can. I can keep that as a right, so long as I am responsible with how I exercise it. If I cross the line of forcing myself on a woman that doesn't want to sleep with me, then it no longer a right.

So, I have the right to

Life, so long as I am responsible with other people's lives

Liberty, so long as I use my liberty in a responsible way in my society

and the Pursuit of Happiness, so long as I pursue happiness in a way that is responsible to myself and others.

In short, you cannot fairly speak about rights and ignore responsibilities.

In the context of this discussion, Apple has the right to buy these patents, but the have the responsibility to use them in a way that meets with the legal and ethical expectations that our society has put on them.

Go look at Apples Law suits against HTC Nokia and Samsung. They all deal with Apple patents.

I'm not completely versed in the issues involved, but there may well be deeper issues than just Apple trying to slam the door on competition (an anti-trust behavior). Do we know, for example, whether HTC, Nokia and Samsung sought licensing terms from Apple, had reasonable terms offered and rejected them, etc.? Or, for that matter, if they unknowingly violated an Apple held patent, do we know that Apple's first move wasn't to approach them with terms for licensing the technology, which they then rejected?

Now, it may well be that Apple is being predatory in this case, and that they never sought a licensing solution to this situation, but I suspect that no one here really knows the answer to that question.

 

[dermeister]

I must seriously disagree with this comment. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Let's take a look at some of what might be considered the most fundamental rights:

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Life: While this remains a debate in most places around the world, if someone egregiously abuses the responsibility of respecting other people's lives (i.e. kills a bunch of people, or maybe even just one person), there are plenty of places in the U.S. where they lose their right to life.

The right to your life doesn't impose any responsibility per se. Like all rights, it's a negative right - it's up to you to sustain your life if you want to, not others. Killing others means you have in effect renounced this right, and others can take your to stop you from taking theirs.

Liberty: This is a really easy one. Anyone who breaks the law and is sentenced to time in prison loses their right to liberty, for a period of time, at least.

Again, your right to liberty has no tied responsibility. You don't owe anybody anything. You just can't interfere with their liberty without renouncing yours, and therefore opening yourself to incarceration.

Pursuit of Happiness: Here we get kind of fuzzy. Suppose I define the pursuit of happiness as the effort to sleep with as many women as I possibly can. I can keep that as a right, so long as I am responsible with how I exercise it. If I cross the line of forcing myself on a woman that doesn't want to sleep with me, then it no longer a right.

Again you can do whatever you want so long as you aren't interfering with anybody else's rights. You have no responsibilities however. There is no "responsibility" or "duty" not to rape - that would be an inappropriate and farcical use of those terms. It's immoral to do so, and by initiating force on others you can be morally responded to by force through the objective/collective defense of others.

In the context of this discussion, Apple has the right to buy these patents, but the have the responsibility to use them in a way that meets with the legal and ethical expectations that our society has put on them.

Apple has the right to buy them, and the absolute right to use them to the maximum use proscribed by the legal definition of the rights conferred upon the owner of a patent. To use an un-objective standard such as "ethical expectations that our society has put on them" is absolutely absurd, is a complete travesty, goes against everything objective law stands for, and constitutes an infringement on the rights of Apple.

 

[Snowy_River]

...Again, your right to liberty has no tied responsibility. You don't owe anybody anything. You just can't interfere with their liberty without renouncing yours, and therefore opening yourself to incarceration...

You like the word 'farcical', and in this case it seems to really apply to your own statement.

No legitimate right comes with anything any "responsibility" or exceptions...

But, if you violate one of someone else's rights, then you renounce yours? Isn't that an exception? Can it not, therefore, be said that you have this right so long as you are responsible with it? Thus, this right goes hand in hand with the responsibility to not violate someone else's rights? Otherwise, you lose this right? And, if you can lose it, if there is a responsibility, if there is an exception, by your own definition, is this, therefore, no longer a legitimate right?

With your own argument, you're arguing the case for responsibilities being tied to rights. To think otherwise is, well, farcical.

 

[dermeister]

You like the word 'farcical', and in this case it seems to really apply to your own statement.

But, if you violate one of another person's rights, then you renounce yours? Isn't that an exception? Can it not, therefore, be said that you have this right so long as you are responsible with it? Thus, this right goes hand in hand with the responsibility to not violate someone else's rights? Otherwise, you lose this right? And, if you can lose it, if there is a responsibility, if there is an exception, by your own definition, is this, therefore, no longer a legitimate right?

With your own argument, you're arguing the case for responsibilities being tied to rights. To think otherwise is, well, farcical.

By violating another person's rights, you physically contradict the same principle that is that foundation of yours - as such, you openly declare, by action, that you don't believe in such rights (i.e. the right to life), and open yourself to retaliation.

It's not someone else who takes the right from you, or confiscates it because you've failed in your duty. It is you, the only person who can, who declared through action "I don't agree that individuals have the right to their lives, I don't adhere to reason, and I am a threat to the lives of those who do". It's unilateral - nobody can make you do it.

Your use of the word responsibility is meaningless. A responsibility is a burden of obligation. It's an active concept. You don't have a passive responsibility to everybody on the planet. Properly used: "I have a responsibility to feed my children". Improperly used: "I have a responsibility not to rape people". Not being permitted to rape someone isn't a burden or an obligation.

You're substituting the concept behind the word "responsibility" with the concept of "not being allowed to/should not [morally]". See the difference?

We're digressing into language lessons here, which isn't really my purpose. But at least you've learned two new words: farcical (you seem to have taken a particular liking to this one!), and responsibility (you already knew how to spell this one, but your definition was wrong).

 

[Snowy_River]

...You're substituting the concept behind the word "responsibility" with the concept of "not being allowed to/should not [morally]". See the difference?

Mserial-Webster's first definition of "responsibility":

The quality or state of being responsible, as in
a. moral, legal or mental accountability.

Hm. This would seem to fit into the concept of "not being allowed to [legally]/should not [morally]", doesn't it?

Now, I'm not disagreeing with the definition of responsibility as being a duty or obligation, but the funny thing about language is that words often have more than one meaning. For that matter, one can argue that we have the duty or obligation to act within the laws of the society. If we fail to do that, we open ourselves to incarceration. Thus, if we do not accept the responsibility of acting within the laws of our society, we lose the right to liberty.

We're digressing into language lessons here, which isn't really my purpose. But at least you've learned two new words: farcical (you seem to have taken a particular liking to this one!), and responsibility (you already knew how to spell this one, but your definition was wrong).

Yes, we are. From what I see, you're trying to use the old "baffle with bs" approach to cover the fact that you're essentially saying the same thing that I am, you just don't want to accept the language of "rights and responsibilities".

Oh, and I already knew "farcical" (as well as myriads of other words), and my definition of "responsibility" was most certainly not wrong.