<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
p.Default, li.Default, div.Default
{mso-style-name:Default;
margin:0in;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Dear OSI,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='margin-left:-5.4pt;border-collapse:collapse;border:none'><tr style='height:89.45pt'><td width=439 valign=top style='width:329.0pt;border:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:89.45pt'><p class=Default style='margin-left:.5in;mso-add-space:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>I attach an interesting read about FRAND and about patent licenses for telecommunications standards: “</span><b><span style='font-size:8.0pt'>Unwired Planet International Ltd and another (Respondents) <i>v </i>Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and another (Appellants) Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and another (Appellants) <i>v </i>Conversant Wireless Licensing SĀRL (Respondent) ZTE Corporation and another (Appellants) <i>v </i>Conversant Wireless Licensing ĀRL (Respondent)”</span></b><span style='font-size:8.0pt'><o:p></o:p></span></p></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:white'>Unfortunately, th</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>is decision makes no mention of the requirement that open source implementations cannot accept FRAND licensing because our software generates no revenue to pay royalties. I submit this case for your reading pleasure because, as the UK court pointed out, the cost of patent litigation is outrageously high. The results are of no use to free software!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>A few key quoted paragraphs are below….<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:dotted windowtext 3.0pt;padding:0in 0in 31.0pt 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>36. It is clear from the UK, German and Chinese proceedings that ascertaining the validity, essentiality and infringement of national patents within a portfolio by legal proceedings in several different jurisdictions involves the expenditure of a prodigious amount of money and effort by both claimants and defendants, although the proceedings in China are significantly less costly than those in the West. It is not disputed that it would be impracticable for the parties to litigate these matters in each of the countries which the portfolio covers. It also appears to be clear and it is not disputed that within a substantial portfolio of patents there may be many patents, which (if subject to examination in proceedings) would be found to be invalid in whole or in part or not infringed by the technology used in the standard. These are in our view relevant facts when one addresses the fair balance between the interests of the SEP owner and the implementer which the IPR Policy seeks to achieve.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>60. The submission also fails adequately to take into account the external context which we have discussed. Operators in the telecommunications industry or their assignees may hold portfolios of hundreds or thousands of patents which may be relevant to a standard. The parties accept that SEP owners and implementers cannot feasibly test the validity and infringement of all of the patents involved in a standard which are in a sizeable portfolio. An implementer has an interest in taking its product to the market as soon as reasonably possible after a standard has been established and to do so needs authorisation to use all patented technology which is comprised in the standard. The implementer does not know which patents are valid and infringed by using the standard but needs authority from the outset to use the technology covered by such patents. Similarly, the owner who declares a SEP or SEPs does not know at this time which, if any, of its alleged SEPs are valid and are or will be infringed by use pursuant to the developing standard.… By taking out a licence of an international portfolio of generally untested patents the implementer buys access to the new standard. It does so at a price which ought to reflect the untested nature of many patents in the portfolio; in so doing it purchases certainty. The IPR Policy was agreed against that background and the undertaking required from the SEP owner likewise needs to be interpreted against that background.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>63. We now turn to the submission (para 51 above) that the English courts have no jurisdiction to determine the terms of a licence involving disputed or potentially disputed foreign patents. We disagree.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>114. The text of clause 6.1 lends itself naturally to being read in this unitary way. The “non-discriminatory” part of the relevant phrase gives colour to the whole and provides significant guidance as to its meaning. It provides focus and narrows down the scope for argument about what might count as “fair” or “reasonable” for these purposes in a given context. It indicates that the terms and conditions on offer should be such as are generally available as a fair market price for any market participant, to reflect the true value of the SEPs to which the licence relates and without adjustment depending on the individual characteristics of a particular market participant. Put another way, there is to be a single royalty price list available to all.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>