Carlton And Shampine Case Study
Accordingly, the method of Carlton and Shampine might not be able to accurately apply. Although these hypothetical cases are restricted in a narrow range of applications, in any case, these theories exhibit a certain significant concerns: SSO members’ expectation of lower royalties, the benefit of a bilateral license negotiation, vertical integration, and the meaning of similarly situated firms. On the account of upstream patent holders’ reluctance to seek licenses from suppliers of low-priced intermediate components in a supply chain, end-product manufacturers usually bear royalty charges. This issue arises repeatedly in the following cases: Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Sys., and FTC v. Qualcomm.
…show more content…
As Judge Robart question the incremental approach in Microsoft, “its lack of real-world applicability” is the primary flaw of the incremental approach. By and large, the words used by the patentee define the scope of claims, and it depends on how a PHOSITA understands it. In some cases, however, the scope of the term alters as it adjusts to changes in technology, which means the scope is not definite. If it is indefinite, then it would be difficult to calculate the proportion of how much the economic value is brought by the technology. Patent claims can differ extensively. In addition to “the uncertainty in patent law's peripheral claims,” it is also unimaginable to find out the explicit value a patent produces when there are too many patents gathered on an electronic end product. While “egregious discrimination” might refer to licensors’ conduct that unduly manipulates bargaining power to threaten standard implementers’ investment in developing standard-complaint products, the term “similarly situated” does not have a precise definition. Taking this into consideration, Carlton and Shampine define “similarly situated” as any firm using common component, even when some firms produce more profit than others. When firms derive “the same incremental value” from the patented technology, they contend, they should pay exactly the same royalty
As Judge Robart question the incremental approach in Microsoft, “its lack of real-world applicability” is the primary flaw of the incremental approach. By and large, the words used by the patentee define the scope of claims, and it depends on how a PHOSITA understands it. In some cases, however, the scope of the term alters as it adjusts to changes in technology, which means the scope is not definite. If it is indefinite, then it would be difficult to calculate the proportion of how much the economic value is brought by the technology. Patent claims can differ extensively. In addition to “the uncertainty in patent law's peripheral claims,” it is also unimaginable to find out the explicit value a patent produces when there are too many patents gathered on an electronic end product. While “egregious discrimination” might refer to licensors’ conduct that unduly manipulates bargaining power to threaten standard implementers’ investment in developing standard-complaint products, the term “similarly situated” does not have a precise definition. Taking this into consideration, Carlton and Shampine define “similarly situated” as any firm using common component, even when some firms produce more profit than others. When firms derive “the same incremental value” from the patented technology, they contend, they should pay exactly the same royalty