|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 05 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
Are you suggesting that that is a naive reading of the law, or that it would be
naive to think that Google follows it?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 05 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
Sorry. Um. I'm naive in a bunch of ways. I'm just
wondering which one.
(1) Naive expectations that Google will use patents in a
purely defensive way? (They are, so far.)
(2) Silly understanding of the legal document? (Could be,
agreeing with FM is always a bad, bad, sign. I re-read it a
few times to take that agreement into consideration.)
(3) Naive hopes that Google could deal with their
competitors without a bunch of lawsuits? (Well, definitely
unrealistic given the way the patent system 'works'. I
believe they're charting a reasonable, pragmatic course that
isn't evil and is mostly good and is probably close to the
best possible, all things considered.*)
(4) Naive belief based on the contract that Google
implicitly authorized at least one of Motorola's latest
lawsuits? (I'm pretty sure that Google would have used that
clause to veto a new lawsuit against HTC.)
(5) Old-fashioned belief that contracts tend to be kept
fairly confidential. (Not for international mergers)
--Erwin
*I do wonder a bit. Google does seem to have a tendency to
favor results over manners. Developing Dalvik was a clear
end-run around Sun's scheme to make money from Java. Given
Sun's unwillingness to negotiate a useful contract, it was a
reasonable choice - but did leverage Sun's prior
contributions without compensating them. Of course, to be
fair, Google did try to pay Sun something reasonable first.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, June 05 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
Naive how? What did I misinterpret from the document? I
don't see anywhere in the document that says Google can
direct Motorola to start a lawsuit.
Not certain of SEC rules, but given that the deal had not
closed until recently, I suspect there would have been some
folks looking at it if Google gave direction before the
closing. Until then they are two companies with a contract
between them.
Maybe I'm wrong - I certainly don't claim to be either a
lawyer or an expert on the SEC.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
