Replies to post #151265 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[my3sons87]

Ranger, you are a man of very fine commn sense. And I too want to know what the hell is going on over their in the UK with Mr. Justice Pumfrey.

It seems to me that if you license for a patent pool you have no basis in fact of trying to establish the value of the patent based on essentiality. I thought the value was based on what the patent holder wants to charge based on what the market will bare. Essential or not.

I also don't think that Judge's should be determing essentiality. They should remain within the confines of existing law and determine infringement. We are all aware that anyone with the money can find a competent individual to say it is clearly white when it is in fact clearly black. And vice a versa.

So, to me it looks as though the UK is trying to set a new precedent in law in this effort of establishing essentiality. And I am thinking Mr. Justice Pumfrey is sorry he opened up this can of worms. Nokia says it is not essential and IDCC says yes it is. No its not. Yes it is. Not. Is. Is not. Is so. And on and on and on.

But whatever it is that Mr. Justice Pumfrey is going to rule he should get on with it. And as I recall his decision will not affect the essentiality of patents filed in the US of A.

[olddog967]

laranger: Would just like to comment on your statement that "And failing to declare essentiality doesn't make a patent non-essential." While the statement is true, failure to declare could have serious consequences.

The famous case in this area is Rambus v. Infineon. Rambus did not disclose their patents during the standards process and then later sued Infineon for infringement. Infineon filed a counter claim, and a Federal District Court jury ruled in Infineon's favor that Rambus had been guilty of fraud. This decision was overturned by the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Infineon finally settled with Rambus. While this case was going on the FTC filed an anti trust action against Rambus based on the same circumstances. This action was subsequently dismissed by the FTC's Chief Administrative Judge.

Although Rambus was exonerated in both cases, the decisions were narrowly based primarily on the fact that the rules at that time of the particular standards body involved were vague in regard to the need to disclose essential patents. Apparently if the rules were more specific Rambus may have lost. If so the consequences would have been harsh as the District Court had issued an injunction against Rambus and awarded Infineon attorney fees, and the  FTC would have restricted Rambus from filing any infringement suits.

[redhot]

May it please the Ranger...Jorma did his apprenticeship in banking in London, the returned to Finland and took a post at Nokia, eventually steering them into GSM products.

England, from the days of the Haklyuts [compiled databases of worldwide resources from the late 1600's], are consumed with locating resources to be later exploited. The project has always encompassed all sources, both human and raw material. The project has never ended.

Apropos of all this, Jorma has friends and obligations.

[osoesq]

This all started with MOT's flip-phone. They wanted to get it to market, first, so they made a deal with IMMC that they would straighten up with us ASAP. When they got their first bill, they decided that they weren't going to pay these rubes from KOP and then the suits began. ERICY was in court, first, but, it was MOT that started the war. Ironically (sp?) it might be MOT that ends the war, also. JMHO-Oso