Originally Posted by
Edward Weber
Thanks for that link, very informative reading.
This paragraph from SBD is what I've been saying all along
If SawStop and TTS are seeking to improve safety by making AIMT broadly available to consumers, they will make a FRAND commitment. If they continue to refuse to make a FRAND commitment, however, the truth about their motives will be clear—SawStop and its parent, TTS, are seeking to use a CPSC mandate to extract royalties that are not fair, not reasonable, and not nondiscriminatory. The Commission should not allow SawStop and TTS to hijack its authority in order to line SawStop’s and TTS’s own pockets at the expense of consumers and competition. The Commission should instead require SawStop and TTS to make a FRAND commitment before mandating AIMT.
I don't have the dates, but I think all of the SawStop patents are just about expired. And, by law, you cannot do a patent licensing deal that extends past the expiration date of the patent.
So, let's say that a patent has one year to run, and a company wants to license it from the owner. The owner might say, "I'll license you with the provision that you continue to pay me a reduced fee after the patent expires." Can't do it by law.
Mike
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.