Source: Foss Patents
quote: But Apple was never offered a patent under the FRAND system.
quote: Unlike what the uninformed Jason Dick says
quote: When I am stating facts
quote: Apple wanted to preserve their (very normal) right to challenge the validity of the patent in the first place, not a 'provision to later prove them invalid' - which is very misleading.
quote: Apple apparently made an offer to license the patent on FRAND terms going forward. But the matter was complicated by the fact that Apple's agreement included a clause that would allow it to try and have the patent invalidated if Motorola tried to seek damages for past infringement over and above the agreed FRAND rate. Apple is in fact contesting the validity of the patent in suit in another federal court in Germany. Obviously it doesn't want to have to pay for infringing a patent that might not be valid. Unfortunately, the issue of past infringement of standards-essential patents hasn't previously been addressed in the relevant cases in Germany. As Motorola's legal team successfully argued, if a patent is infringed without a valid license, there should be some punishment in the form of monetary compensation. While competition law may require patent holders to honor FRAND agreements and offer a license going forward, the court agreed that past infringement should be treated differently.
quote: No you don't - that's like saying let's agree to pay x amount of something, but wait till I rule it invalid so you get nothing period.