Comments on: IPR – The Weakness of Essential (part iv)

By: IPR: Apple vs. Samsung – The weakness of essential (part v) | Radio Free Mobile

Mon, 05 Aug 2013 05:48:15 +0000

[…] A SEP holder is also NOT supposed to seek injunctive relief as this is deemed to be a breach of the FRAND principle. (see here) […]

By: windsorr

windsorr — Tue, 07 May 2013 08:08:40 +0000

Totally agree many are not. However when you declare it as an SEP you lay yourself open to the obligations that that entails whether or not the patent is SE or not.

again agree..the Android defense led by Google has suffered from incredibly poor execution and ineptitude. More and more MMI llokks like a thumping $12.5bn loss for GOOG shareholders.

By: Tim Nash

Tim Nash — Tue, 07 May 2013 07:30:18 +0000

Many declared S.E.P.s aren’t essential to the standard. Since S.E.P.s were and still are self-declared, many companies chose to over declare to give themselves better leverage in royalty negotiations. So Apple has yet to be found guilty of infringing Samsung’s S.E.P.s.

Another problem for Motorola and Samsung are the EU fines they are facing for abusive use of S.E.P.s. In the US, Motorola is facing a breach-of-contract action from Microsoft for its failure to comply with FRAND licensing. I suspect Apple will hit Samsung with an equivalent action.

This is indeed a war of attrition and Android is running out of ammunition.