InvestorsHub Logo

infinite_q

11/11/11 8:08 PM

#345931 RE: HenryW #345928

Very interesting article, HenryW. It looks like Apple may have more to worry about with Samsung and Motorola than it thought. If they can't depend on a FRAND defense to buy them time then the value of essential patents actually increases in the market. Apple could use IDCC essential patents against unlicensed infringers, notably the entire 4G community.

Perhaps Apple is more willing now to consider purchase of IDCC patents to counter-attack with, or force Samsung and others to negotiate on its terms.

olddog967

11/11/11 8:31 PM

#345932 RE: HenryW #345928

Henry: Some good information regarding European Courts and FRAND. What I find interesting is that F. Mueller (FOSS Patents) keeps stating that the Amsterdam judge, in effect, threw out Samsung' FRAND argument. For example, from todays blog: "Unlike the Dutch judge who told Samsung that there was no case for an injunction since it failed to make an offer to Apple on FRAND terms".

Below is the introduction to a previously posted article discussing the Amsterdam Court ruling that was written by three Dutch patent lawyers. While agreeing that Samsung did not obtain it's requested injunction, their conclusion was that the decision was on a specific narrow legal ground, rather than a broad determination that F. Mueller appears to keep posting about.




"On Friday 14 October 2011, a Dutch court handed down an important decision in the ongoing,
worldwide patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. The preliminary relief judge of the District
Court of The Hague denied Samsung's claim for a preliminary (patent) injunction against Apple,
accepting Apple's 'FRAND defence'. Although several sources have suggested otherwise, this
ruling does not imply that it is no longer possible to obtain an injunction based on 'FRAND pledged'
standard essential patents in the Netherlands. On the contrary, the decision provides guidance as
to the approach that a patent holder should take in order to ensure that it can successfully enforce
its FRAND pledged patents in (preliminary relief) court proceedings.
The Court only found that
Samsung had not complied with this approach."



(continued)

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68393392




Valuebull911

11/12/11 4:38 AM

#345937 RE: HenryW #345928

Blows a big hole in his contention that essential patents cannot be strategically valuable

Please note b&g!