I don't get it, isn't licensing the whole point of software patents.. sharing IP with the world and receiving royalties in return ? So how can Apple refuse to license the patent to HTC ?
The purpose of patents is to share the IP with the world, in return for a period of exclusivity. The decision to licence the technology in return for money is entirely down to the patent holder.
In particular there is no requirement that patents be licensable on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, nor that what society at large pays for access to the invention is less than it would have cost to have each competitor independently recreate it. Terms this generous should only be offered for inventions we're confident wouldn't have existed otherwise for any price. We shouldn't be enabling massive rent-seeking for straightforward improvements.
Comments
I don't get it, isn't licensing the whole point of software patents.. sharing IP with the world and receiving royalties in return ? So how can Apple refuse to license the patent to HTC ?
The purpose of patents is to share the IP with the world, in return for a period of exclusivity. The decision to licence the technology in return for money is entirely down to the patent holder.
In particular there is no requirement that patents be licensable on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, nor that what society at large pays for access to the invention is less than it would have cost to have each competitor independently recreate it. Terms this generous should only be offered for inventions we're confident wouldn't have existed otherwise for any price. We shouldn't be enabling massive rent-seeking for straightforward improvements.