Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Prophet who wrote (51645)	8/29/2000 3:59:08 AM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

<font color=red>Impeachment overturned! Exactly! And they have not violated their patents and that is why they will attack from the excessive royalty rates. Although in both the U.S. and the EU legal principles concerning the conflict between IP laws and antitrust laws are in a state of flux, the following unifying principles can be drawn for both jurisdictions: (1) The risk of compulsory licensing is greater in both the U.S. and the EU if the licensor and the proposed licensee are actual or potential competitors in a relevant market and a refusal to license will have the effect of removing the licensee as a competitor from the market or preventing it from entering the market. (2) Courts will hesitate to regulate royalty rates. Therefore, the owner of the IP has the right to extract as royalty whatever rate the market will bear. While there is a risk that member state courts in the EU will intervene and deem royalty rates excessive, this risk is reduced if the same rates are offered throughout the EU and the prospective licensees, therefore, cannot claim discrimination or conduct which tends to impair the free flow of goods or services within the common market. ...

To: The Prophet who wrote (51645)	8/29/2000 5:17:58 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Prophet, from antitrust (monopoly) per se, you are right, but not from the "unfair trade practices". Xerox was forced by Justice to license all its competitors, because it created not only a monopolistic state (that held for a good 10/15 years) but "unfair trade practices". On the other hand, Polaroid won a $6 B judgement against Kodak, because it offered Kodak a license, and Kodak decided not to, but entered instant photography by violating Polaroid's patents (and breaching in the process a "non Disclosure-Non Use agreement, namely, Polaroid, opened its "kimono", and Kodak took advantage) It would help if a lawyer would step in and explain these differences, my knowledge in this field is marginal at best, only from my own licensing activities. Zeev