decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Nokia Moves To Quash Barnes & Noble's Letter of Request the ITC Sent to Finland Re Discovery ~pj - Updated 2Xs
Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 03:47 AM EST

Nokia is throwing quite a fit about the ITC approving Barnes & Noble's request that the ITC send a Letter of Request to Finland to ask the country to aid Barnes & Noble to depose five Nokia executives, including CEO Stephen Elop, and provide Barnes & Noble its list of requested Nokia documents.

Barnes & Noble, you may recall, is asserting that Microsoft, partnering with Nokia and MOSAID, is plotting "to use patents to drive open source software out of the market," saying it is threatening companies using Android with an anticompetitive choice: pay Microsoft exorbitant rates for patents -- trivial, invalid, or not infringed, according to Barnes & Noble -- or spend a fortune on litigation. It wants discovery to try to prove its claims.

Here's how Nokia took the news. In its Motion to Quash [PDF], Nokia tells the ITC that it immediately contacted Finland and filed objections, and it also contacted the Office of Unfair Import Investigations at the ITC to try to block. And now it asks the ITC to quash the Letter, or in the alternative wait to see what Finland does.

And in a second development, the ITC has denied Microsoft's November motion to force Google to hand over business information about Android, which Google opposed, the Commission saying the requests were unreasonable and not relevant. There was also a second Microsoft motion to depose Google, and the same order grants that motion, which Google had agreed to anyhow. All this means the schedule of discovery in the case has changed, but so far, the hearing is scheduled to be in February. Considering the way Nokia is fighting to quash discovery, threatening an interlocutory appeal if necessary, I'm guessing that date is not going to be the actual date.

Plucky Barnes & Noble is fighting for itself, but this ITC case has the potential to affect the entire Android ecosystem. Barnes & Noble is shining a light on what it views as an anticompetitive plot, with patents just the latest Microsoft weapons of war, probably hoping that if the light is shining right on them, the plotters will be unable to fulfill their unholy scheme. Don't forget that Barnes & Noble has also filed a complaint with the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, so it isn't just us chickens who are now watching this play out. That may explain Nokia's determination to avoid discovery. I mean, if there's no such plot, why fight this hard to avoid handing over the contracts?

Jump To Comments

Here are all the recent filings, and if you don't see a PDF, it means it's not being made available to the public:

12/21/2011- 467130 - Commission Investigative Staff's Response to Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Llc's Motion for Summary Determination of No Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,957,233

12/21/2011 - 467131 - Commission affInvestigative Staff's Response to Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc. and LLC's Motion for Summary Determination of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,889,522

12/21/2011 - 467143 - Commission Investigative Staff's Unopposed Motion for 350 Page Limit on Pre-Hearing Briefs

12/22/2011 - 467244 - Agreement to be Bound by the Protective Order of Adam DiCola, Wayne A. Hock and Janis Jennings

12/23/2011 - 467334 - Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc.’s, LLC’s and Inventec Corp.’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Determination of Invalidity of U.S. Patent 5,889,522

12/23/2011 - 467335 - Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc.’s, LLC’s and Inventec Corporation’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Determination of Invalidity of U.S. Patent 6,597,233

12/27/2011 - 467345 - Agreement to be Bound by the Protective Order of Guy Joubert

12/27/2011 - 467375 - Agreement to Be Bound by the Protective Order of Hector Valdes

12/27/2011 - 467379 - Agreement to be Bound by the Protective Order of A. Andersen, R. Attaway, L. Blair, J. Bonicelli, R. Cook, S. Crandall, C. Grant, S. McKay, E. Niles, T. Reidt, R. Scott, C. Seaton, A. Spangrud, C. Stow and H. Thuman

12/27/2011 - 467381 - Microsoft's Motion for Leave and Memorandum in Support to Submit Reply in Further Support of Motion for Summary Determination on the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement [Motion No. 769-046]

12/27/2011 - 467382 - Microsoft Corporation's Response to Barnes & Noble's Rebuttal Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Motion No. 769-046)

12/29/2011 - 467460 - Joint Motion to Amend the Procedural Schedule

12/29/2011 - 467478 - Barnes & Noble's Opposition to Microsoft's Motion for Leave to Submit a Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Determination on the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement (Motion No. 769-057)

12/30/2011 - 467517 - Amending the Procedural Schedule

12/30/2011 - 467516 - Issuing Amended Ground Rules

12/30/2011 - 467560 - Complainant's Motion for Leave to Reply and Response to Respondent Barnes & Noble's Statement of Additional Material Facts Filed in Response to Microsoft's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Determination

12/30/2011 - 467561 - Complainant Microsoft Corporation's Responses to Respondents Barnes & Noble, Inc. and LLC's Statement of Additional Material Facts in Opposing Complainant Microsoft Corporation's Motion for Summary Determination

12/30/2011 - 467569 - Transmittal Letter and Exhibits to Motion for Leave to File Reply

01/03/2012 - 467614 - Denying Microsoft's Motion to Certify to the Commission a Request for Judicial Enforcement of Subpoenas Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum; and Granting Microsoft's Motion for Leave to Take the Deposition of Google, Inc. After the Close of Fact Discovery

01/03/2012 - 467612 - Granting Unopposed Motion for a 350-Page Limit on Pre-Hearing Briefs

01/03/2012 - 467634 - Motion to Quash Barnes & Noble, Inc. and's Letter of Request to Third-Party Nokia Corporation and Request to Notify the Central Authority of Finland of the Filing of the Motion to Quash

In its motion to quash, Nokia tells the ITC that Barnes & Noble's Letter of Request is abusive, untimely (only a month before the hearing on Feb. 6, 2012), violates the Hague Convention, no less, is nothing but a fishing expedition, wasn't filed on the five individuals as it should have been but only on Nokia the company (and one of the individuals, Nokia adds, is in the UK, not Finland, so there should have been another Letter of Request sent there), its service was incompatible with Finland's law that it should be served personally, etc. In short, it wants it quashed by any means necessary, any possible excuse.

In the alternative it asks the ITC to wait until Finland responds to Nokia's objections that it wrote to Finland about as soon as it heard about the Letter of Request going to Finland. That's on page 5 of the motion.

If it ends up having to turn over the discovery, it reserves the right to ask for costs. "Counsel for Nokia Corporation has contacted Jeffry Hsu of the Office of Unfair Import Investigations ("OUII") to determine whether the OUII consents to this motion..."

On its claim that it's untimely, page 6 states that Barne & Noble failed to ask for an extension of fact discovery and the deadline has passed. The Letter of Request was served on Nokia on Dec. 21, and the schedule for "the already-extended fact discovery regarding patent misuse" closed on December 14, Nokia writes. I gather the issue is that patent misuse was a defense from day one, six months ago, but trying to get Nokia drawn in is the new part, judging from page 10, so Nokia's complaint could be precise math but sort of irrelevant.

Nokia, you'll remember, told the ITC this, to explain why it wanted help with discovery:

Specifically, as part of Barnes & Noble’s affirmative defense of patent misuse, Barnes & Noble seeks the evidence requested in order to prove that Microsoft is improperly expanding the scope of its patents in an attempt to dominate mobile operating systems such as the AndroidTM Operating System (“Android”) that threaten Microsoft’s monopoly in personal computer operating systems. On information and belief, to further that strategy, Microsoft and Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”) and MOSAID recently entered into a series of agreements transferring approximately 2,000 Nokia patents to MOSAID in exchange for MOSAID’s efforts to license those patents (or sue those that do not take a license) and promise to pay approximately two-thirds of any royalties back to Microsoft and Nokia. Microsoft had previously entered into partnership agreements with Nokia, whereby one of the stated motivations for this partnership was to combine the parties’ respective patent portfolios and to coordinate their offensive use of patents to drive out open source operating systems, including Android specifically. Such conduct constitutes patent misuse, which renders the patents at issue unenforceable.
So it wants to see those contracts and talk to the relevant executives. Page 12 of Nokia's filing is funny:
At best, Barnes & Noble has conjured up a conspiracy theory that accuses Complainant Microsoft Corporation and non-party Nokia Corporation of using Nokia patents (without providing any basis for asserting the alleged "misuse" is tied to the Microsoft patents-in-suit) to undermine the Android market for handsets in the United States.
It's all in Barnes & Noble's head. Nokia references some rulings by the Commission's staff that apparently were in Microsoft's favor, and claims that this too makes the Letter of Request inappropriate, since it claims that to date the evidence refutes Barnes & Noble's conspiracy theory. They are in quite a tempest about all this.

It ends, in a footnote, warning that if it loses its motion to quash, it will appeal ("seek interlocutory appeal of such Order under 19 C.F.R. Section 210.24(b)"). The question of whether a letter of request that "plainly violates both the Hague Convention and the local law of the Requested State" should be quashed involves a "controlling question of law or policy as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that either an immediate appeal from the ruling may materially advance the ultimate completion of the investigation or subsequent review will be an inadequate remedy," Nokia says.

Wow. I gather Elop reeeeeeally doesn't want to testify, or someone doesn't want him to. Footnote 9, for example, says that if any depositions are permitted, Nokia "should be allowed to select the individuals to testify regarding the Topics." As in, anyone but Elop, perchance?

Finally, they argue documents sought might not even exist. Heh heh. I'm guessing the contracts do. Or they are privileged, Nokia says. So having to collect them would be "burdensome". Burdensome to collect documents that don't exist.

Judging from the fight being put up, it might be burdensome but incredibly useful to Barnes & Noble and to Android vendors, period. And incredibly interesting for the rest of us. I don't think Barnes & Noble is alone in wondering about Nokia's partnership with Microsoft.

The order regarding Google is #467614, and it's the ITC ruling on Microsoft's motion asking for enforcement of a subpoena on Google on certain topics. We didn't earlier show you that motion, so here it is now, but fair warning -- with all the attachments, it's 190 pages long:

11/09/2011 - 463859 - Complainant Microsoft Corporation's Motion to Certify to the Commission a Request for Judicial Enforcement of Subpoenas Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum Issued to Google Inc. and Request for Shortened Time to Respond

Here's what Microsoft asked for in the attached Memorandum, on page 6:
  • REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: All documents reflecting or relating to business evaluations, assessments, strategy discussions, or analyses of the actual or potential impact, on Android distribution, of patents held by Microsoft, Appie Inc., Oracle Corp., or any other entity.

  • REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5: All documents reflecting or relating to business evaluations, assessments, strategy discussions, or analyses of the impact on Android distribution of actual, potential, or threatened patent infringement lawsuits by Microsoft related to Android.

  • REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6: All documents reflecting or relating to business evaluations, assessments, strategy discussions, or analyses of the impact on Android distribution of public claims by Microsoft or Microsoft executives or employees that Android infringes Microsoft patents.

  • REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: All documents reflecting or relating to business evaluations, assessments, strategy discussions, or analyses of Android's capability (current or projected) as a personal computer operating system.

  • REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: All documents reflecting or relating to business evaluations, assessments, strategy discussions, or analyses of competing mobile operating systems from Microsoft.
Microsoft wanted business information about Android, as a defense against Barnes & Noble's patent misuse defense. Here's why Microsoft said it needed it:
... evidence of the lack of anticompetitive effect on Android would dispose of the defense.
The motion was denied because:
The ALJ finds that Microsoft has failed to show how a third party's (Google's) opinions relating to Microsoft's patents are relevant to respondent Barnes and Nobles' patent misuse defense.
Microsoft had pointed out that when asked about the Microsoft patent attacks, Larry Page had said it hadn't been very successful, on page 5 of the Memorandum in Support:
Google also has refused to produce any documents generated after October 5, 2011, the date the subpoenas were served on Google. This refusal ignores the subpoena duces tecum's instructions and will exclude critical evidence that has been generated after the date of the subpoena's service. For example, Larry Page, Google's chief executive officer, reportedly was asked by an analyst in a quarterly earnings call on October 13,2011, about the patent litigation against Android that Barnes & Noble claims has an anticompetitive effect. Mr. Page responded, "[w]e're seeing no signs that that's effective ... If anything, our position is getting stronger." (See Ex. B, Jay Greene, Google's Page Says Android Attacks Have No Impact, CNET NEWS (Oct. 13, 2011), available at http://news.cnet.coml8301-1023_3-20120137-93/googles-page- says-android-attacks-have-no-impactl (last visited Nov. 7, 2011) (emphasis added». Google's refusals deprive Microsoft of critical information necessary to fully defend against Barnes & Noble's baseless misuse claims, and prevent the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission from reviewing a full and complete record of the relevant facts.
But that leaves out that what Barnes & Noble is asking the court and Finland to help them dig out is a *future* plot, one that has yet to be fully implemented or in some respects even begun.

I get the impression that both Microsoft and Nokia are in a state of deep disturbance, so Barnes & Noble may be exactly right that blowing the whistle will hobble the plot. I don't think Microsoft or Nokia expected Barnes & Noble to connect the dots that this partnership was about the patents, or if it did that it could do anything about it, and they seem genuinely upset.

Well. Good.

So, the big picture now is that clearly the patent misuse defense Barnes & Noble has raised is firmly on the table, smack dab in the middle of it now. They are doing additional discovery now just on that issue, as you can see in #467460. The new schedule is attached as Attachment A to #467517. The rules of the road are in #467516. These are new rules [PDF] as of October 19, according to the website for the ITC, where they are highlighted.

So, it's game on, not just for Barnes & Noble but for Android at large. There is a lot at stake, thanks to this plucky little company. I hope you go and buy a book. Or a Nook. Something. Litigation is like bleeding money from an artery.


In response to some comments, I want to explain something important about legal cases. As you know, the US is a country that follows a system where prior case decisions can and do influence later decisions. They call that case law, and judges are pretty strict about following what went before, unless there is a mighty good reason not to.

For that reason, you don't want to decide who to support in any legal contest just by who the parties are. That is almost never a factor. People who are shilling or are ideologues do it that way, but it's the wrong way.

Here's how you decide:

What is the legal issue? If Plaintiff wins, what happens to FOSS? If Defendant wins?
That is the ONLY way to analyze a legal case, because the outcome will affect everyone potentially.

In this case, B&N has opened the curtain to show us what it says Microsoft has been doing to bully people. It is the *only* intended victim to do so. Others have just folded and paid.

For that reason alone, the case matters. It's only because of B&N's revelations that an antitrust case is even possible. And an antitrust case is the onlyl way I see to block Microsoft from destroying Linux and Android with its and its partners patents. B&N sees that too, and while its interests may not be identical to the community's in all respects, in the lawsuit they are one.

Executives in companies are rarely admirable in their decisions, from a community standpoint, in that money is what they are about, one way or another. Ignore that, except to make sure they don't fold, if you have it in the power of your hand to keep that from happening.

There is, in short, a big difference between the company and the lawsuit. And what matters is the lawsuit. If you have trouble with that concept, look at the SCO v. Novell case. That outcome, Novell prevailing at trial, was vital for Linux's interests, even though the former executives at Novell had let the community down in other ways horribly. But winning that case mattered to the community, and so Groklaw continued to cover it regardless, and it was important to do so.

Update 2: Barnes & Noble also filed a Motion for Issuance Letter Rogatory [PDF] in United States District Court for the District of Columbia in early December, where the Microsoft v. Barnes & Noble patent infringement case was filed parallel to the ITC action. Not many of you may have accounts at the ITC, so I wanted to let you know that you can get this document from Pacer, since it's been filed there. I thought you'd find it of interest, because it explains very clearly why Barnes & Noble is interested in learning more from MOSAID and why it seeks help from Canada to get it. On page 5 of the motion, Barnes & Noble says this:

Respondents have raised several defenses against Microsoft's allegations of patent infringement, including an affirmative defense of patent misuse. As part of that affirmative defense, Barnes & Noble has alleged that Microsoft is using its licensing practices to broaden improperly the scope of its patent grant in an attempt to dominate open source mobile operating systems (like the one Barnes & Noble's handheld devices use) that threaten Microsoft's monopoly in personal computer operating systems. The Letter Rogatory is intended to obtain information material to the patent misuse defense.

In the latest series of tactics designed to further its anticompetitive strategy, Microsoft and Nokia Corporation ("Nokia") recently entered into a patent licensing agreement with MOSAID. Pursuant to that agreement, Nokia will transfer approximately 2,000 wireless communications patents and patent applications to MOSAID and will grant Microsoft a license to practice those patents. MOSAID will then license those patents or sue those that do not take a license and will turn over approximately two-thirds of any licensing revenue to Microsoft and Nokia. The arrangement effectively gives Microsoft greater power to assert patents against rival technologies.


Nokia Moves To Quash Barnes & Noble's Letter of Request the ITC Sent to Finland Re Discovery ~pj - Updated 2Xs | 315 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread (not started by Anonymous)
Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 04:31 AM EST
Please summarize in the Title box error->correction or s/error/correction/

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 04:42 AM EST
Please put the title of the News Picks article in the title box and the link to
the article in your comment for everyone's convenience after the article has
scrolled off the News Picks sidebar. Use HTML Formatted mode to make the link

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 04:49 AM EST
Please stay off topic in these threads. But do use HTML Formatted mode to spice
up your comment and to add clicky goodness. Off topic topics can be fun! Or
informative. But always off topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcripts here
Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 04:53 AM EST
There's more to Comes. Please post your transcriptions of Comes exhibits here with HTML markup posted in Plain Old Text mode to make it easy for PJ to copy and paste. Find a document to transcribe at the Comes Tracking Page where to prevent duplication of effort you can reserve a document if you have or get a login name.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nokia Moves To Quash Barnes & Noble's Letter of Request the ITC Sent to Finland Re Discovery ~pj
Authored by: N_au on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 05:21 AM EST
Looks like B&N hit the nail on the head. Otherwise Nokia would not be
fighting so hard to get it all squashed. I bet Ballmer is ruing the day he said
the collaboration with Nokia included using their patent portfolios to help stop
the opposition.
Also looks like Elop may have been sent there by MS. Otherwise why would they
stop producing the most popular phone (the N9) in Finland for October.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why fight this hard to avoid handing over the contracts?
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 05:24 AM EST
Always a good way of dragging things out - fight like a dog over something
And we know what dragging things out can achieve.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Fear? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 02:14 PM EST
    • Fear? - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Tuesday, January 10 2012 @ 05:27 AM EST
      • Don't forget - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 10 2012 @ 05:34 AM EST
I bought a Nook Color, PJ
Authored by: trevmar on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 06:30 AM EST
I bought a Nook Color. Put in an SD card from which it boots Cyanogenmod. It is
a really nice little Android tablet. B&N certainly deserve our support...

Now I just need a wallpaper version of PJ's red-dress cartoon -- as a
talking-point :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Very entertaining - someone is more than a little upset eh? :-)
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 10:38 AM EST
hmm saying that did I not see that B&N were thinking of selling the Nook

RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nokia's response
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 01:34 PM EST
Ooops, did I say Nokia?

I meant Microsoft, of course... Nokia is no longer.

They're a WPS. Wholly Pwned Subsidiary

[ Reply to This | # ]

This case may be the last time Nokia is relevant
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 02:18 PM EST
It was nearly suicidal on Nokia's part to agree to go with
Windows Phone 7. Their stock immediately tanked on the

All of this is a desperate attempt by Microsoft to boost
their failed smartphone platform. Remember the launch of
Phone 7 with the iPhone funeral-in-effigy? Everyone outside
of Redmond has split their sides with laughter at the idea
that Phone 7 is an "iPhone killer".

MS still has the Windows/Office desktop monopoly, but they
are watching helplessly as the world moves beyond the MS PC
as the digital platform of choice.

"But, but, we're Microsoft... you have to choose us, don't
you? Don't you?..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fireworks! Even if a week late. :)
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 03:43 PM EST
Fireworks! Even if a week late. :)

I guess Elop didn't like any of these.

It must have hit that very right nerve.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Nokia Moves To Quash Barnes & Noble's Letter of Request the ITC Sent to Finland Re Discovery ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 07:42 PM EST
I would actually DONATE to their legal fund to see this one play out !

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Manchurian CEO did his job as ordered
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 07:47 PM EST

That was the sub-title of a Charl ie Demerjian article.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Best wishes, B&N
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 08:31 PM EST
There is something very disturbing about a legal system so
corrupted by money that a wealthy opponent can use it to
destroy a weak one by exhausting them with false accusations.

It is even more disturbing that a large fraction of our
corporate leaders have so lost their souls that they would
actually do it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nokia Moves To Quash Barnes & Noble's Letter of Request the ITC Sent to Finland Re Discovery ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 10:10 PM EST
OK...can I ask a silly question here?

Nokia is now saying in official court filings that Nokia patents won't be used
by Micro$oft to Godzilla-stomp Android.


So...what if B&N says "great" and goes home declaring victory?
And then if the "conspiracy" that B&N was alluding to DOES occur
(against any Android maker and/or Google), whoever gets sued gets to go to court
and claim unclean hands or the like, citing Nokia's court filings in this case?

In other words, has Nokia overstepped in their claims and are in a position
where they can't be shown to have lied in this case, later on?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Welcome back, PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 08 2012 @ 11:01 PM EST
I know you never left, but reading this article, it seems you've rediscovered
some of the fire in your belly you had during the SCO years. There's a genuine
enthusiasm to see right beat might. I missed that.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting Strategy
Authored by: sproggit on Monday, January 09 2012 @ 03:33 AM EST
If you step back a pace and think about it, the strategy we see unfolding here
is a pretty shrewd move on Microsoft's part.

Everything that follows in this post is unsubstantiated conjecture.

1. Pick the Right Partner
Microsoft chose Nokia *because* the latter were failing. MS had a choice between
Nokia and RIM, pretty much, and chose to go with the former. I suspect that they
decided the best partner was one who already had their back against the wall, a
partner whose own projections and showed that they were going to fold within a
couple of years anyway. Microsoft would thus represent a lifeline.

2. Attack Android
Again there was a choice... The new partnership *could* have chosen to go after
Apple instead. Except that Apple is sitting on a war chest that runs to the tens
of billions of dollars, and would certainly be up for that fight.

3. Do things indirectly
Don't get directly involved. Set up proxy or subsidiary companies and try and
keep things at arm's length, so that if, or when, they explode, fallout is

4. Play a Double Blind
Sure it looks like Microsoft are supporting Nokia by introducing Windows on the
platform... but what happens if the whole idea sinks without trace? Who ends up
sitting on all those juicy mobile patents currently owned by Nokia? Hmm? Could
MS possibly have first refusal? Could that allow MS to license those patents
along with their Windows mobile product? That's just win-win for Redmond.

I appreciate that B&N are the plaintiffs here, but it's obvious why. What
will be interesting will be what happens if other parties file motions with the
court to ask permission to enter the litigation. Wouldn't it be something if
other Android users were to step in and thus ensure that B&N had the cash to
continue this to the bitter end?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Finnish legal response
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2012 @ 09:15 AM EST
IANAL, but somewhat versed in Finnish legal practice.

As I see it, if the request to the Finnish Ministry of Justice is made by a
competent authority, regarding a legitimate complaint and ongoing legal
proceedings and meets the format specified by the Hague convention, I don't see
how the Ministry could refuse the request.

In general, the Finnish authorities cannot analyze the case much, since Finland
is not the actual venue and the merits of the case (or lack thereof) are decided
elsewhere. Finnish MoJ is simply asked (as the designated national authority) to
facilitate a legal process in another Hague convention jurisdiction.

The actual case is not pursued under Finnish law, nor is there an overriding
need to protect individual persons' rights as this is a corporate civil case.
The main question is that would the request be legal and enforcable under the
applicable law (per venue). Client/attorney communication is of course
privileged, but I don't see how this could fall into that category.

Of course Nokia's objections can slow the process down as they must be
addressed. But overall, despite Nokia's enormous influence in Finland, our legal
system takes it's integrity EXTREMELY seriously. B&N can of course fail to
follow proper procedure and in a case like this there are legal ways to delay.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If B&N is supporting Open Source, why don't they follow the GPL on the Nook Tablet?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2012 @ 10:19 AM EST
See this discussion on XDA Developers:

Barnes and Nobel is legally obligated to release source

Apparently, while the Nook Color bootloader is unlocked, the Nook Tablet is locked down, most likely because of Netflix's insistence (in order to show HD streams). I find it hypocritical that B&N is "championing" open source, while not following the legal requirements of the GPL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barnes & Noble CEO reaffirms Nook brand commitment
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, January 09 2012 @ 12:44 PM EST

So let us move on from the rumours that B&N are divesting themselves of Nook. It is here to stay, and I wish them very well with it.

Now can they please think about selling it worldwide?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nokia Moves To Quash Barnes & Noble's Letter of Request the ITC Sent to Finland Re Discovery ~pj - Updated
Authored by: dmarker on Monday, January 09 2012 @ 04:17 PM EST

I am glad you added that update because for quite a while I have been feeling
there was a lopsided bias in favor of B&N and was also feeling we were
seeing reverse propaganda.

But on reading into the purpose behind the litigation and reading the update
comments, I agree completely with them.

Yes this does matter because there real evidence does appear to be those
companies B&N is citing (& fighting), are indeed out to tax free
software out of the market with threats and bullying.

I also have been in little doubt that Google has become a major target for many
of the 'older established' PC/smartphone/Software players. Some are attacking
Google for doing what they did / d o themselves. Apple as much as I admire their
goal of ultimate products for consumers, is one of these 'old tier' companies.
Microsoft is there. Oracle is to me a core 'bad boy' out to eclipse Microsoft
for devious dealing.

So again, am glad you added that update, it certainly clarified aspects of this
for me.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Nokia Moves To Quash Barnes & Noble's Letter of Request the ITC Sent to Finland Re Discovery ~pj - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 09 2012 @ 06:29 PM EST
Got a Nook Tablet for Christmas. After I figured out how to root it on 1.41, it
has turned into a great little device!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )