decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
What? | 300 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 05 2012 @ 12:09 AM EDT
There's still (there was now I guess) a contract between Google and MMI before
the merger was finalised. That's what a merger agreement is. Google's ok was
required for some action (ie settling patent litigation).

So uh yeah - to at least that extent Google did have influence over MMI's legal
direction and no one cared... because that's pretty normal, particularly if
you're buying a company for the patents.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sorry Jim. I think you are wrong
Authored by: complex_number on Tuesday, June 05 2012 @ 01:55 AM EDT
Any legal (or other) action that could jeopardize the value of the company (ie
Motorola) to its purchaser would have to be cleared with the purchasers legal
team.

AFAIK, this is SOP in memoranda of agreements that get signed when a deal like
this is done.

Part of the Due-diligence that Google will(or should) have done was to uncover
all the current legal cases and ALL the potential ones. These all have a $$$$
value on the asset being purchased/sold. Every one requires an individual risk
assesment.

If Moto didn't clear this and the value of the purchase fell then Google would
be suing the pants off the Moto directors who gave the go ahead for this case.
The Moto shareholders would no doubt join the feeding frenzy.

IANAL etc.

---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )