Blog

I submitted comments to the US Department of Justice’s call for comments that we previously discussed here.

Apple’s long-term campaign to avoid paying FRAND SEP licensing fees continues unabated. In what has become a modus operendi, every time Apple’s license with a major SEP licensors – Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, InterDigital, Qualcomm – comes up for renewal, global warfare breaks out, and then after forcing SEP licensors to pay millions in legal fees, Apple settles for unknown, typically after being found by a court or the ITC to be an “unwilling” technology user who failed to negotiate in good faith.

Have SEP owners finally had enough? Readers of this blog will understand that many of the key automotive OEMs have been refusing for quite some time to take what, by any measure, is a very reasonable license to most of the key wireless SEPs.

Anyone who has observed standard essential patents (SEPs) for any length of time knows quite well that behind all the legalese there is a heavy dose of politics – both foreign and domestic.

Due to the size and complexity of computer code, the software is usually created by a team of programmers.

I am very pleased that Practical Law of Thomson Reuters released an update of Standard-Essential Patent Licensing Management that I co-authored with my amazing collaborators Doug Clark and Eric Stasik.

I have written extensively about the many negative effects of the 2015 IEEE patent policy and it was gratifying to see the US Department of Justice (DOJ) acknowledging these negative effects.

Copyright protection is, generally speaking, formality-free in the US and other member states of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

To determine which computer program elements are copyrightable, the federal courts (which have exclusive jurisdiction over US copyright cases)

In high tech, famous OEMs have a long history of playing fast and loose with the antitrust laws while complaining about SEP owners’ alleged antitrust abuse