"Do owners of patents for which licensing declarations have been made enjoy more rights than other patent holders? Do such licensing declarations impose obligations on potential licensees rather than on patent holders? Should prospective licensees have no right to challenge such patents? In another responsive article, that is what one commentator claims our series of articles on IPWatchdog asserted, although we never wrote or suggested anything of the sort."
"In doing so the commentator employs intentionally misleading language like "declared essential patents" to characterize such licensing declarations as claims of essentiality, and "prov[ing]... licenses are needed" which, as will be explained, is not possible. These hyperbolic assertions are commonplace in the world of standards related patents, as are straw-man arguments concocted by implementers trying to escape the need to take a license."
Critics contend that FRAND commitments limit patent exclusionary rights and expand potential licensee pools to all supporters of a standard. Some commentators mischaracterize licensing declarations as claims of essentiality and assert they "prove... licenses are needed," a conclusion described as impossible to establish. Hyperbolic assertions and straw-man arguments commonly appear in standards-related patent disputes, often advanced by implementers seeking to avoid licensing obligations. The dispute centers on innovators seeking compensation for innovations embodied in standards and implementers seeking lower or no fees. Clarification is necessary to correct misconceptions about rights, obligations, and FRAND's scope.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]