Il raconte comme d'habitude des trucs pour faire avance la cause d'une des boites qui l'employe. Voyons un aure point de vue. En gros, il y a des regles acceptes et signes par tous les acteurs du marche, en particulier Microsoft et Apple, sur le sujet. Aujourd'hui que Google, par l'intermediaire de Motorola, va pouvoir recuperer de l'argent, a travers ces accords FRAND, ces deux compagnies veulent changer les regles du jeu. Comme c'est bizarre.
Et enfin par rapport au fait que Google "attaque" je trouve va fort de cafe vu que en realite ils contre-attaque et font donc bien de la defense.
Quel gros FUDeur ce gars...
Lawyers Rebut FOSSpatents' FRAND
Florian Mueller, author of the Foss Patents blog who does consultancy work for Microsoft, wrote that "2.25% of the whole selling price is absolutely out of step with the concept of Frand (essential patents) and with industry practices".
He noted that if a BMW car was to use one of Motorola's "essential" licences, the phone-maker could potentially demand thousands of pounds from each sale. "It looks to me like Google is taking an extreme position now so it can easily make concessions going forward."
However, Andrew Alton, a lawyer at the law firm UDL Intellectual Property, took issue with this analysis. "Google's letter seems to make clear that they consider 'relevant end products' to be handsets and tablets - the key word here is 'relevant' and it seems far fetched that Google would intend that to cover other products like cars," he told the BBC.
Another London-based patent lawyer, who asked not to be named since his company acts for several of the firms involved, added that it would be difficult to get every technology firm to sign up to a rule change on essential patents.
He said some firms would be unwilling to do that as they would lose a means to counter-attack Microsoft and Apple lawsuits involving non-essential patents.
[PJ: See what the issue is? Apple and Microsoft would like to change FRAND terms to include a waiver of injunctions, which isn't now part of FRAND requirements. In fact, it's an equitable remedy. They'd like it to be removed as a defensive move, in order to disarm Android vendors, especially now that Google is buying Motorola. In short, it's not so much about loving standards all of a sudden as wanting to win by disarming the other side. And then there is the problem that no one can build a smartphone without paying so much for patents they can't make a profit. This is now hitting Apple and Microsoft too. I wish Microsoft and Apple would be more straightforward. Their paid "consultants" too. I mean if someone is being paid by Microsoft, whose position is he or she likely to push? So, good for BBC News for seeking out lawyers to check on what non-lawyer consultants are pushing out there.] - BBC News
[^] # Re: D'un autre cote
Posté par Albert_ . En réponse au journal Apple = Microsoft + Google. Évalué à 2.
Il raconte comme d'habitude des trucs pour faire avance la cause d'une des boites qui l'employe. Voyons un aure point de vue. En gros, il y a des regles acceptes et signes par tous les acteurs du marche, en particulier Microsoft et Apple, sur le sujet. Aujourd'hui que Google, par l'intermediaire de Motorola, va pouvoir recuperer de l'argent, a travers ces accords FRAND, ces deux compagnies veulent changer les regles du jeu. Comme c'est bizarre.
Et enfin par rapport au fait que Google "attaque" je trouve va fort de cafe vu que en realite ils contre-attaque et font donc bien de la defense.
Quel gros FUDeur ce gars...
Lawyers Rebut FOSSpatents' FRAND
Florian Mueller, author of the Foss Patents blog who does consultancy work for Microsoft, wrote that "2.25% of the whole selling price is absolutely out of step with the concept of Frand (essential patents) and with industry practices".
He noted that if a BMW car was to use one of Motorola's "essential" licences, the phone-maker could potentially demand thousands of pounds from each sale. "It looks to me like Google is taking an extreme position now so it can easily make concessions going forward."
However, Andrew Alton, a lawyer at the law firm UDL Intellectual Property, took issue with this analysis. "Google's letter seems to make clear that they consider 'relevant end products' to be handsets and tablets - the key word here is 'relevant' and it seems far fetched that Google would intend that to cover other products like cars," he told the BBC.
Another London-based patent lawyer, who asked not to be named since his company acts for several of the firms involved, added that it would be difficult to get every technology firm to sign up to a rule change on essential patents.
He said some firms would be unwilling to do that as they would lose a means to counter-attack Microsoft and Apple lawsuits involving non-essential patents.
[PJ: See what the issue is? Apple and Microsoft would like to change FRAND terms to include a waiver of injunctions, which isn't now part of FRAND requirements. In fact, it's an equitable remedy. They'd like it to be removed as a defensive move, in order to disarm Android vendors, especially now that Google is buying Motorola. In short, it's not so much about loving standards all of a sudden as wanting to win by disarming the other side. And then there is the problem that no one can build a smartphone without paying so much for patents they can't make a profit. This is now hitting Apple and Microsoft too. I wish Microsoft and Apple would be more straightforward. Their paid "consultants" too. I mean if someone is being paid by Microsoft, whose position is he or she likely to push? So, good for BBC News for seeking out lawyers to check on what non-lawyer consultants are pushing out there.] - BBC News