美国政界和财界公开对白宫施压 奥巴马否决对苹果旧款产 ...

这个本来就ITC脑残的裁定，三星的这个专利是基础型专利，是无线网络的通信标准，是不能用来排他性禁售的。否则这个世界要乱套了，任何标准都不会被承认，输掉标准的公司就可能不能卖产品了。所有科技大公司都一致反对，不这样推翻，一旦成了判决案例，以后就永无宁日了。

天气预报 发表于 2013-8-4 11:29
这个本来就ITC脑残的裁定，三星的这个专利是基础型专利，是无线网络的通信标准，是不能用来排他性禁售的。 ...
如果像你说的这样有理，为什么美国贸易代表大人不敢这么理直气壮地说呢？

天气预报 发表于 2013-8-4 11:29
这个本来就ITC脑残的裁定，三星的这个专利是基础型专利，是无线网络的通信标准，是不能用来排他性禁售的。 ...
圆角矩形 苹果专利~~~~~~~~~~

茄子暴宝 发表于 2013-8-3 22:41
圆角矩形 苹果专利~~~~~~~~~~
专利有两种：基础专利(SEP, Standard-Essential Patent) 和创意专利。基础专利是不能用来排他禁止的，否则所有的通讯，电脑软件的标准没有互通，标准的专利公司可以用来打击竞争对手。三星的这个专利是AT&T公司用的，所有给AT&T用得手机都要执行这个标准，所以是属于基础专利。至于苹果的形状，那个不是基础专利，至于是不是专利，那个不属于这个范围。正因为ITC这个脑残的判决，所有科技大公司一起反对，如果变成了首例，按照欧美的法律惯例原则，以后标准设立就想都别想了。没有公司会同意竞争对手的标准。

专利有两种：基础专利(SEP, Standard-Essential Patent) 和创意专利。基础专利是不能用来排他禁止的，否 ...
鬼才相信这些冠冕堂皇的文字，苹果和三星各自的诉讼都在本国主场获胜，就是个屁股决定脑袋的问题，剩下的就是为预设好的结论找理由罢了。

你这么知道没有？

原文：
http://www.scribd.com/doc/157894 ... 794-Exclusion-Order

。。。
In addition, on January 8, 2013, the Department of Justice and United States Patent and
Trademark Office issued an important Policy Statement entitled "Policy Statement on Remedies
for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary FRAND Commitments" ("Policy
Statement")? The Policy Statement makes clear that standards, and particularly voluntary consensus standards set by standards developing organizations ("SDO"), have incorporated
important technical advances that are fundamental to the interoperability of many of the products
on which consumers have come to rely, including the types of devices that are the subject of the
Commission's determination. The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I
strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards-essential
patents ("SEPs") who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that
are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"), gaining undue leverage and engaging
in "patent hold-up", i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a
market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the
standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen. At the same time,
technology implementers also can cause potential harm by, for example, engaging in "reverse
hold-up" ("hold-out"), e.g., by constructive refusal to negotiate a FRAND license with the SEP
owner or refusal to pay what has been determined to be a FRAND royalty.
。。。

凉水水 发表于 2013-8-3 21:38
如果像你说的这样有理，为什么美国贸易代表大人不敢这么理直气壮地说呢？

你这么知道没有？

原文：
http://www.scribd.com/doc/157894 ... 794-Exclusion-Order

。。。
In addition, on January 8, 2013, the Department of Justice and United States Patent and
Trademark Office issued an important Policy Statement entitled "Policy Statement on Remedies
for Standard-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary FRAND Commitments" ("Policy
Statement")? The Policy Statement makes clear that standards, and particularly voluntary consensus standards set by standards developing organizations ("SDO"), have incorporated
important technical advances that are fundamental to the interoperability of many of the products
on which consumers have come to rely, including the types of devices that are the subject of the
Commission's determination. The Policy Statement expresses substantial concerns, which I
strongly share, about the potential harms that can result from owners of standards-essential
patents ("SEPs") who have made a voluntary commitment to offer to license SEPs on terms that
are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND"), gaining undue leverage and engaging
in "patent hold-up", i.e., asserting the patent to exclude an implementer of the standard from a
market to obtain a higher price for use of the patent than would have been possible before the
standard was set, when alternative technologies could have been chosen. At the same time,
technology implementers also can cause potential harm by, for example, engaging in "reverse
hold-up" ("hold-out"), e.g., by constructive refusal to negotiate a FRAND license with the SEP
owner or refusal to pay what has been determined to be a FRAND royalty.
。。。