Re: [rtcweb] Counting NOs (Re: Straw Poll on Nokia mincing)

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

On 12/21/13, 11:25 AM, "Ron" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 06:47:49PM +0000, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>> 
>> >Opus did indeed have several spurious IPR declarations against it,
>> >marked willing to license FRAND.
>> 
>> For the record, in my opinion, those declarations are not spurious.
>
>You have me curious now.  Have you simply not read the detailed analysis
>that shows just how laughably spurious they are, or is your faith in
>Texas Juries stronger than any facts?

Perhaps I have analyzed a few of those patent claims myself?  I could do
that just as well as you guys.  I may simply have decided not to publish
the results, knowing the associated risks (which you guys either are not
aware of, or are willing to take)  Perhaps I trust the opinion of those
lawyers, many of whom I know personally for years, who made RAND
declarations?  Perhaps I have an idea what the consequences of
over-declarations can be?

As for Texas juries, I don’t worry too much.  Once a case hits a jury, in
Texas or elsewhere, I (or any other defendant) would already have spent
millions in pre-trial costs, much of which I would never see again.
Assuming I have a RAND declaration on hand, my damages  will almost
certainly orders of magnitude less, even if my product were found
infringing and the patent was found valid.  I could deal with that,
probably.  All that assuming I’m a comparatively small company--the giants
have other considerations to cope with, but also different resources.

OTOH, if there are no RAND declarations, things can be vastly different.
If someone refuses to license, I could see my products pulled of the
shelves and run over by bulldozers.  Does that make the picture clearer?
Just because you folks view paying license fees as the end of the world,
that doesn’t mean that others view it the same way.

>
>
>> IMO, somewhat to my surprise, the quality argument did cut to, as I
>> believe you correctly stated, a growing part of the industry.  You know,
>> some folks are willing to run the ³risk² of paying RAND terms for good
>> technology.
>
>And lots of folks end up paying them for invalid patents on bad technology
>too.  Just because a system is horribly broken it doesn't mean smart
>people
>can't fix it.  Being outstandingly better on all terms still beats being
>better on either one for desirability, accessibility, and putting and end
>to the inviolability myth of a protection racket.
>

Have fun with your crusade.

>  Win, win, win,
>  Ron
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb