tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6003999027697641970..comments2024-03-29T11:10:02.290+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Should we worry about "use-based" pricing in DG GROW’s Standard Essential Patent Roadmap Consultation?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31271011339617379132017-05-08T15:47:38.330+01:002017-05-08T15:47:38.330+01:00It seems that once again the lobbying of large fir...It seems that once again the lobbying of large firms with the EU Commission has been quite fruitful. <br /><br />Even if one could consider that SMEs may be could look alarmists, the situation looks worrying for them should it go through. They do not have the deep financial pockets which would allow them to have long fights with patent holders. <br /><br />As the Commission regularly heralds the usefulness of its endeavours especially towards European SMEs, one wonders why the Commission has not been more careful.<br /><br />Thee same actually goes for the UPC before which such disputes will end up once in force (when??).<br /><br />A word of warning: This post is not to be reproduced on Techrights or by Mr Schestowitz in any form whatsoever.<br />Bleek Looknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13996185946231139732017-05-08T11:20:24.852+01:002017-05-08T11:20:24.852+01:00The opposition to use-based licensing is misplaced...The opposition to use-based licensing is misplaced in two respects. <br /><br />First, the reasoning is entirely based on the assumption that the rights holders would use use-based licensing to engage in price gouging. But banning such uses actually precludes appropriate lower pricing as well. It can be discriminatory to treat parties in a different position in a similar way. Royalties that appear completely reasonable in one use may preclude the emergence of another use. Where the uses are in different markets, there is no logical reason founded in competition law to suggest that the royalties should be the same; indeed, insisting on charging the same royalty regardless of the product market in which the technology is used could amount to using a dominant position in a technology market to preclude the emergence of a new product market, and therefore be anti-competitive. <br /><br />Secondly, relying on Unwired Planet as authority for the proposition that the position of the licensee is irrelevant regardless of the market in which the licensees participate is a major stretch from the facts. All of the licences examined in UP were in the same product market. The judge was simply not faced with the question of whether use-based licensing might be FRAND.<br /><br />So on both counts, an approach that suggests a bright line test against use-based licensing is ill-thought out, likely to produce perverse results, and potentially anti-competitive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com