Comments on: Rockstar – Falling star

By: BlackBerry – Roller-coaster. | Radio Free Mobile

BlackBerry – Roller-coaster. | Radio Free Mobile — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 06:25:41 +0000

[…] Second: If Samsung was desperate for patents it could have purchased Mototola Mobility from Google for a third of the price or taken advantage of the ongoing disintegration of Rockstar (see here). […]

By: Tim Nash

Tim Nash — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:12:55 +0000

The Huawei application for dismissal was with prejudice, so unlikely it was just for SEPs as Rockstar can’t sue Huawei again over the patents-in-suit.

By: windsorr

windsorr — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 07:07:03 +0000

I suspect Huawei settled as it was not already licensed for the SEPs of Nortel. These it has to take. I think that it will be a pretty short licence as these SEPs are old and will expire soon. Then it will be back in the fray with two fingers firmly pointed in Rockstar’s direction

By: windsorr

windsorr — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 07:03:31 +0000

This is standard practice already I think…certainly you cant file a realistic lawsuit without asserting patents.

By: Tatilsever

Tatilsever — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:20:24 +0000

One of the reform proposals, which I hope will go through, requires patent holders to identify the patent that they claim is infringed during the early stages of a conflict, not some time after actual litigation start accumulating. Still, I am not sure if that will help with wholesale licensing negotiations if the patent portfolio holder does not accuse the other party of infringement, but only insinuates. 🙂

By: Tim Nash

Tim Nash — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:54:36 +0000

Huawei has settled with Rockstar over patents infringed by Android.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/huawei-settles-with-rockstar-consortium.html

If the Rockstar search engine patents-in-suit are upheld and infringed, it could get expensive for Google.

By: windsorr

windsorr — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 07:06:32 +0000

That’s exactly the problem. FRAND is a principle and therefore open to interpretation which is where all the problems arise. Same for RAND really.

By: windsorr

windsorr — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 07:05:09 +0000

because ownership is not very clear. I t will be very difficult to find which one it owns and which ones it doesn’t as the patents of public record are listed by the company that original filed the invention. Plus out of 6,000 the alleged infringer would then have to figure out which ones Rockstar thinks its infringes…and impossible task

By: tatilsever

tatilsever — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:47:30 +0000

>”Failure to allow examination of patents is very unusual indeed.”
Patents are of public record. How is Rockstar preventing an examination?

By: Stephen Wood

Stephen Wood — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:55:46 +0000

First, a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and am not offering any advice.
In my experience in various standards bodies around the world, I have experienced RAND terms much more often than FRAND terms. Note the path cut by Qualcomm and its royalty requirements.

When I have heard this discussed, free breaches into the question of price setting/fixing whereas simple RAND avoids that question. It then becomes a question for the courts and for negotiation as to the definition of reasonable.

If the terms were in fact RAND, Samsung would be in a position to make a claim and the White House’s engagement would seem to be more partisan. The point of debate would then shift to the reasonableness of Samsung’s royalty claims.