have a history on file already:
The behavior of ZTE and Huawei is consistent with the findings of the U.S. House of Representatives, which released an investigative report expressing serious concern about the trade practices of these companies, including Huawei’s “pattern of disregard” for U.S. IP rights.
The above is discussed in IDCC's public interest around unwilling licensees.
furthermore,
"For example, if a putative licensee refuses to pay what has been determined to be a FRAND royalty, or refuses to engage in a negotiation to determine FRAND terms, an exclusion order could be appropriate. Such a refusal could take the form of a constructive refusal to negotiate, such as by insisting on terms clearly outside the bounds of what could reasonably be considered to be FRAND terms in an attempt to evade the putative licensee's obligation to fairly compensate the patent holder. . . . This list is not an exhaustive one."
Finally,
"Importantly, one of the asserted patents (the ‘970) is not even arguably essential as to any standard practiced by the accused products, and therefore no FRAND considerations are applicable to the ‘970 patent in any event."
see my previous post on the 970 patent, which was ruled infringed but invalid. That is the most interesting patent, IMO.
do the twins think the Pres will veto a ban, given their history? do the right bro's.
to quote the movie Rounder's
"pay that man his money"
| 
