Comments on: The Orange Book: The relationship between patents and standards http://www.tangible-ip.com/2009/the-orange-book-the-relationship-between-patents-and-standards.htm ipVA's blog on adding value through intellectual property Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:43:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Relationship between Patents and Standards – the Dutch Case http://www.tangible-ip.com/2009/the-orange-book-the-relationship-between-patents-and-standards.htm/comment-page-1#comment-9133 Relationship between Patents and Standards – the Dutch Case Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:56:02 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=486#comment-9133 [...] reported some months ago on the German case concerning the relationship between patents and standards for [...] [...] reported some months ago on the German case concerning the relationship between patents and standards for [...]

]]> By: andrew watson http://www.tangible-ip.com/2009/the-orange-book-the-relationship-between-patents-and-standards.htm/comment-page-1#comment-3133 andrew watson Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:42:26 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=486#comment-3133 Interesting case give our experiences in the 2G and 3G licensing fields. The commercial distinction for the licensee of actually paying its best estimate of the license fee into a segregated account versus making an accrual may drive the behaviour of actively seeking a license. Overall it feels like a pro-big company decision. I would have liked the court to have tried to put some definition around what FRAND means in practice. As we found in 2G, there is a European FRAND, a US FRAND and an Asian FRAND at very different rates and FRAND can swing wildly over time, giving later licensees a competitive advantage of being able to supply at larger margins. Whilst I agree with the essence of the decision, I'm disappointed that the court would leave the meaning of FRAND to be arbitrarily decided by the licensor. Interesting case give our experiences in the 2G and 3G licensing fields. The commercial distinction for the licensee of actually paying its best estimate of the license fee into a segregated account versus making an accrual may drive the behaviour of actively seeking a license. Overall it feels like a pro-big company decision.

I would have liked the court to have tried to put some definition around what FRAND means in practice. As we found in 2G, there is a European FRAND, a US FRAND and an Asian FRAND at very different rates and FRAND can swing wildly over time, giving later licensees a competitive advantage of being able to supply at larger margins.

Whilst I agree with the essence of the decision, I’m disappointed that the court would leave the meaning of FRAND to be arbitrarily decided by the licensor.

]]>