A bipartisan group of US senators has written to the Obama administration's US trade representative, recommending that he take a closer look at US International Trade Commission's ruling that would bar Apple from importing some of its older iPhones and iPads into the US market. Their reasoning involves what they claim is misuse …
"If companies implementing standards cannot rely on FRAND commitments," ... "they will be less likely to participate in standard setting, which will drive up costs for consumers and reduce the pace of innovation."
And when companies find their patents undefendable just because it's part of standard, you might find those companies less likely to participate in standard setting.
And then we get the problem is disparate systems. Imagine a world where the VGA port wasn't a standard, or the DVI or HDMI, how many ports would a TV need? How many ports could a TV actually have if the TV maker had to licence each and every system from each and every supplier of plugging-in-to-the-back-of-the-TV-technology.
We need standards and we need both sides to play fair, not go all bitchy because they think they are special so should pay the rates they want not what the other people pay.
Ah the good old days when monitors had five Bayonet Neill-Concelman connectors and it was easy to prank the
boss less technically inclined by swapping a few connections when they went to the head. Oh the hilarity that ensued when they returned and called our tech guy to help out. I don't think he ever figured out it was usually the tech guy who set it wonky in the first place since it usually took hours to fix and came with an admonishment to avoid looking at porn online.
Hmm, I wonder if he is a Senator now.
Sorry Samsung, FRAND doesn't allow treating Apple different
The patents are still defensible even when included in a standard. But you have to accept FRAND terms and can't charge Apple 100x more than everyone else by charging them your percentage based on the retail price of an iPhone while charging everyone else the same percentage but based on the contract price of a tiny chip inside the iPhone.
This has been widely reported, everyone who bothers to reply in these threads should be aware of what is going on. If anyone thinks it is "fair, reasonable or non-discriminatory" to try to charge Apple 100x more than you charge anyone else, you should just change your screen name to "FuckApple" so your obvious bias is obvious.
"And when companies find their patents undefendable just because it's part of standard, you might find those companies less likely to participate in standard setting."
Simple solution: scrap patents.
Its very polit-speak kind of language, I read the letter, and it doesn't seem clear where they stand.
The innovation in question was Samsung's. Apple uses it and wants to decide what it is worth.
If FRAND prevents the innovator from profiting from their work, they will not submit anything as FRAND.
And at the same time
A BS "slide to unlock" patent (and a whole list of other "on a mobile device" patents) are worth millions and let you ban your competitors.
This confirms that Apple...
... is having serious financial problems. I mean, they only bribed four senators, for Chrissake!
drive up costs for consumers...
I've never thought that Apple were one to keep prices low for any reason.
What I would like to know is : Why the concern now over consumer products, yet there was not a single peep when RAMBUS was strangling and gouging the entire DRAM industry at a time that DRAM vendors were folding like cheap card tables ?
- Analysis iPhone 6: The final straw for Android makers eaten alive by the data parasite?
- First Crack Bloke buys iPHONE 6 and DROPS IT to SMASH on PURPOSE
- First Fondle Register journo battles Sydney iPHONE queue, FONDLES BIG 'UN
- Early result from Scots indyref vote? NAW, Jimmy - it's a SCAM
- TOR users become FBI's No.1 hacking target after legal power grab