> Using standards-essential patents as legal weapons is completely unethical.
I would argue, it's more like: "using patents as weapons is completely unethical."
And yes, it's a shame to see any patent aggressor get away with it. There is no fundamental difference between FRAND and any other patent. In all cases, independent invention is prohibited, denying inventors their natural right to gather the fruits of their labor.
Secondly, the "can't work around argument" is equally applicable to any patent discussion: unlike copyright, patent regime does not recognize the merger doctrine, placing some foundational methods at risk of being completely locked up by greedy entities.
Third, patent aggressors benefit tremendously from the work of third parties on whose shoulders they stand; patent aggression is an ugly contrast to this.
I would argue, it's more like: "using patents as weapons is completely unethical."
And yes, it's a shame to see any patent aggressor get away with it. There is no fundamental difference between FRAND and any other patent. In all cases, independent invention is prohibited, denying inventors their natural right to gather the fruits of their labor.
Secondly, the "can't work around argument" is equally applicable to any patent discussion: unlike copyright, patent regime does not recognize the merger doctrine, placing some foundational methods at risk of being completely locked up by greedy entities.
Third, patent aggressors benefit tremendously from the work of third parties on whose shoulders they stand; patent aggression is an ugly contrast to this.