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
Artikle mistake - Orange book offer was made and rejected by MMI | 190 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
It just goes on and on.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT
:¬(

[ Reply to This | # ]

RE News Pick: Google’s Aliyun-Android China Discord, Censorship and Piracy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT
Sorry to post here rather than wait longer for an off-topic or news threads..
I'm not going to create them with an anonymous post.
</apology>

I wanted to mention something about this Chinese Android fork and whether or not
its open source..

Google decided long ago that it didn't want to ensure Android was open source.
It chose the Apache 2.0 license in order to get more smartphone makers to come
on board. This is not a copyleft license.

Because of this choice, Aliyun is legally allowed to keep its sources hidden.
Ok, they must provide the source for the Linux kernel if they are using Linux.
If instead they used BSD, I don't think they have any obligation to release
source at all.

Its really a shame. Google doesn't even provide all the source code any more.
The newer versions of the OS require binary blobs :(. It makes it so much
harder for Cyanogen to add support for newer devices.

Its worth mentioning that some vendors DO provide their Android source code.
Samsung springs to mind. I don't know if they also require blobs as well, but
they do at least provide their Android OS source.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft Standards-Essential Patents Shell Game -- Motorola Tells Its Story to the 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 11:28 AM EDT
Since Apple and now Microsoft refuse to license the patents in question, file
papers blocking their use of the technologies forever.

Make it so they can NEVER get a license.
They've infringed. They've refused to negotiate. Take the toys away from them
permanently, or for a 10 year period, then offer to license at very
substantially higher rates.

Apple and Microsoft both deserve to be physically removed from the Cellphone
market for their predatory practices.

Get permanent injunctions on all their products since they refuse to negotiate
in good faith.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: DBLR on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT

Please make your links clickable


---

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: DBLR on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT
Make your links Clickable

---

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: DBLR on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 11:48 AM EDT
Place those you find here so they can be fixed.

---

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft Standards-Essential Patents Shell Game -- Motorola Tells Its Story to the 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 11:49 AM EDT
Judge Posner may not be the Supreme court, but his judgement on
FRAND looks quite rational IMHO. Also there have been quite a few
judgements wrt FRAND in Italy, France, Netherlands; none of these courts
granted any injunctions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft are adamant: The US courts have no jurisdiction in the rest of the world
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 11:57 AM EDT
Isn't it funny how Microsoft changes its mind depending on which side of the court they sit? The Supreme Court opinion in Microsoft v. AT&T:
Any doubt that Microsoft’s conduct falls outside §271(f)’s compass would be resolved by the presumption against extraterritoriality, on which we have already touched. The presumption that United States law governs domestically but does not rule the world applies with particular force in patent law.

The traditional understanding that our patent law “operate[s] only domestically and d[oes] not extend to foreign activities,” is embedded in the Patent Act itself, which provides that a patent confers exclusive rights in an invention within the United States. 35 U. S. C. §154(a)(1) (patentee’s rights over invention apply to manufacture, use, or sale “throughout the United States” and to importation “into the United States”). See Deepsouth, (“Our patent system makes no claim to extraterritorial effect”; our legislation “d[oes] not, and [was] not intended to, operate beyond the limits of the United States, and we correspondingly reject the claims of others to such control over our markets.” (quoting Brown).

As a principle of general application, moreover, we have stated that courts should “assume that legislators take account of the legitimate sovereign interests of other nations when they write American laws.” F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Empagran S. A.; see EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co.,. Thus, the United States accurately conveyed in this case: “Foreign conduct is [generally] the domain of foreign law,” and in the area here involved, in particular, foreign law “may embody different policy judgments about the relative rights of inventors, competitors, and the public in patented inventions.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28.

Applied to this case, the presumption tugs strongly against construction of §271(f) to encompass as a “component” not only a physical copy of software, but also software’s intangible code, and to render “supplie[d] . . . from the United States” not only exported copies of software, but also duplicates made abroad. AT&T argues that the presumption is inapplicable because Congress enacted §271(f) specifically to extend the reach of United States patent law to cover certain activity abroad. But as this Court has explained, “the presumption is not defeated . . . just because [a statute] specifically addresses [an] issue of extraterritorial application,” Smith v. United States,; it remains instructive in determining the extent of the statutory exception. See Empagran,; Smith,.
If Microsoft had discovered that the US courts had jurisdiction abroad, then they would have been liable to AT&T for infringing their audio codec patents in every installation of Windows Media Player around the world. You know, the world wide standard for audio codecs that every audio player needs (actually, I am not sure that this particular codec qualifies as such but, let's not spoil a good story!).

Please note that I did not confuse Samsung with Google and Apple with Microsoft even though the temptation and justification was great.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everything is 404
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:37 PM EDT
All of the PDF links to the briefs are 404. Boo, I wanted to
read them in their glorious entirety :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Circular logic
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:56 PM EDT
I got partway into the first brief before getting a severe migraine. The district court judge, who was trying to stop the German's court injunction, said that if he is not allowed to resolve the dispute than his future ability to resolve a dispute would be taken away. Umm, Judge, you either have the ability to contradict a German court or you don't. To quote "ER 31. The district court added, specifically “for the edification of the Court of Appeals so it knows where I‟m coming from, that I consider the preservation of my ability to resolve this dispute to be something that needs to be carefully guarded.” ER 36. And the district court stated that it perceived that ability under threat because, “were the German court to issue an injunction, it would sharply usurp the ability of this court to determine whether or not an injunction is appropriate.”

[ Reply to This | # ]

"We can't read what happened at the hearing..."
Authored by: Trybble on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT
... but one can listen. The 9th Circuit court has made audio
available on their website. Case 12-35352 under Audio-Video.
Apparently it requires Windows Media Player but VLC handled
it neatly on my old 'buntubox.

Linky on request.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From a game theory perspective it seems to pay to be extreme and not to act in good faith.
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:13 PM EDT
hmmm

Is this the lesson that he want businesses to learn?

Maybe its time for Google to stop being Mr Nice guy?

---
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 | # ]

US courts exceeding their authority
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:19 PM EDT
I've noticed in the last few years a tendency for US courts to try to impose their authority over that of other national courts, and by extension imply that US law takes precedent over other national laws within the respective national boundaries. This smacks of just another example of a US judge forgetting that US law stops at US national borders, and cannot be imposed everywhere in the world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Microsoft admitting failure?
Authored by: kawabago on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 01:32 PM EDT
If Microsoft manages to jump over this hurdle won't it simply
then enforce it's non essential patents against everyone else
in the market? By refusing to play by the same rules as
everyone else, isn't Microsoft admitting it can't compete
unless it cheats? Isn't Microsoft standing up and screaming,
"Our products are so lousy they won't sell at all unless
everything else is far more expensive."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Contracts are what you use against people
Authored by: DannyB on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT
> The usual way you do a contract is the parties sit down,
> figure out what they can each live with, including a price
> . . .


I heard somewhere that a contract is what you use against people you have a
relationship with?

I think it was said by the CEO of some company or other that became infamous in
2003?




---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft just doesn't want a cross-patent license
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 02:47 PM EDT
Rarely do corporations sign a one-technology license. They cross-license
everything, and decide whether that is even, or if one company should pay the
other. Everyone gets to go on with their business. These licenses cover FRAND
and non-FRAND patents.

But, if one stonewalls the FRAND patents one side has, one can also refuse to
license the non-FRAND patents in the other direction. Then, both sides have to
go to court to figure out if either patent is worth anything.

One can certainly argue that a 2.25% royalty for H.264 for a gaming console is
not fair or reasonable, as if one added up all the patents that need to be
licensed (Motorola isn't the only H.264 patent holder, and there are a lot of
other technology), that one could conceivably be required to pay over 100% of
the retail price of an item in licensing fees. After all, what would be the
impact of not licensing H.264 - one would have to encode cut scenes in a game
with a less efficient codec, and probably could not play external video encoded
with H.264. What would the cost of adding more storage and having fewer
capabilities if H.264 wasn't present, and what portion of that would be
attributable to Motorola? But, that's the whole point of cross-licensing, which
is to keep the smaller players out, who have no patent stakes to barter with.

There are no heroes in this lawsuit. Microsoft should come up with a reasonable
cross licensing arrangement, and Motorola shouldn't be asking for so much. If we
have to have FRAND patents, the return from the patent to the patent author
should be limited to some multiple of the cost to develop the patent. The more
people license it, the less everyone pays. And, once the multiple has been
returned, everyone gets to use it for free. One could pick the multiple high,
such as 10x to account for developments that lead to dead-ends. Heck, it might
even lead to alternatives for pharmaceutical patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

...Microsoft doesn't want to negotiate terms with Motorola...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 05:53 PM EDT

Microsoft doesn't want to negotiate terms with Motorola. It wants a court to set the price, a friendly local court, not the court in Germany.

Maybe I was reading too fast and missed it, but why did Motorola, an US-based corporation, get a German court to rule on patent infringement by Microsoft, another US-based corporation?

I'm no great fan of Microsoft, but isn't Motorola likely just as guilty of forum shopping here as Microsoft? Or does the action by the German court only cover business between the two parties in Germany, e.g. infringing MSFT products sold only in Germany?

Thanks for your explanation...

[ Reply to This | # ]

What to do when you sort of agree with Trolls?
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT
While, I don't like feeding Trolls, I have to sort of agree with this one.

On the one hand, I want to see this vile Federal Judge opinion squashed (like a
bug, pun intended).

On the other, I'd love nothing more than to see all the SE Patents ruled
worthless and payments ruled noncollectable. If the court make it impossible for
patent enforcement of patents stuffed into standards, then standards would be
free of patents once and for all. Good riddance.

What impact would that have on companies desiring to contribute to standards?
Well that is a serious risk, but patents really have no place in standards.

Sadly, though, I'm not foolish, nor any longer idealistic, enough to think for
even a second, that corporations wouldn't find a work around for this. Or even
worse the whole thing will get reversed, and then flipped back and forth, as
soon as MicroBehemoth or the RottenFruit want to protect their investment in
patents in fields they will at some future date possibly want to eliminate
competition.

Just my jaded opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Recursion
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 01:20 AM EDT
The next step is obvious. Motorola must return to the German court and ask for
an injunction preventing enforcement of the US injunction to block enforcement
of the German injunction.

My head hurts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Recursion - Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 04:11 AM EDT
    • Recursion - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 05:40 AM EDT
  • Recursion - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 07:42 AM EDT
Motorola abuses FRAND. Bad for standaards!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 05:05 AM EDT
Groklaw should not let Google/Motorola get of the hook.
Asking 2,25% of a device per patent for a standard that has more than 1000
essential patent and is just a part of a device is not fair and reasonable.

Even when lowered by a factor of 10,000 it would stil mean that this single
standard would comprise 10% of the device retail price which is still huge and
still not reasonable.

It may be that Muicrsoft weant to make google look bad but that is justified for
Google/Motorola abusing the standaard processes like this.
They could easily adopt the same 'not injunction on standard essential patent'
policy as Micrsoft did.

That would be much more acceptable than a 'pay a ridiculous license for this
standard, even though we promised to ask fair and reasonable prices for'
policy.

If they think the licnese offer of Micrsoft is unfair they can easily go to
court for a fair license.

You should also note that Motorola was actually a founding member of the MPEG-LA
patentpool for h.264 in 2003 and as such accepted licensing fees for this
standard that were up tot 100,000 times lower than that they are asking since
their association with Google.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Circuit naming
Authored by: The Cornishman on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 12:38 PM EDT

Does anyone agree with me that just numbering the Appeals Court circuits is dull and unimaginative? I suggest that the US takes a leaf from the Army's1 regimental naming: we could have Steve's Own Washington 9th Light Anti-Injunctors, for example.

1'The Army', by which everyone should understand the British Army, of course

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Artikle mistake - Orange book offer was made and rejected by MMI
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 12:39 PM EDT
The artikel suggest that Micrsoft did not use the Orange book procedure to make
an offer for a license to Motorola. However such an offer was made and rejected
by Motorola.

This was inserted by Microsoft in to the motion for an injunction in Washington
case
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1054798/MS_TRO_Motion_against_Moto.pdf

[ Reply to This | # ]

A different temporary solution for Motorola Mobility?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 06:48 PM EDT
ianal, but I wonder if Motorola could afford to, and be
persuaded to, discount their other business customer's use
of these patents, so as to provide temporary competition
parity for everyone else (with Microsoft's infringement).

If they could also legally reassigning those loses to
Microsoft's actions, for the aim of recovery of this money
from Microsoft. They'd be potentially upping-the-ante of the
cost of infringement to Microsoft, and subverting any market
advantage Microsoft are gaining against other paying
licensees from wilfully infringing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is the practical effect?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 19 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
What is the practical effect of this?

I cannot imagine that a German court will take notice of a US district court so
in Germany at least the injunction will still have force. I am not a lawyer and
know nothing of German law but willfully ignoring an injunction in the UK can
have very very serious consequences. Does this judgement gain anything at all?
Will microsoft not be bound to follow the German courts ruling in Germany or
suffer potentially massive fines.

Ignoring the merits of the dispute itself the issue of jurisdiction and the
willingness of a US court to intervene in this way is deeply disturbing.
Confusion about jurisdiction and the applicable laws simply makes costs, risks
and uncertainty higher for everyone.

The impression from a distance of this and other cases is that the US legal
system is out of control with the ability for vexatious litigants to pursue
cases with no prospect of success for long period sof time with no effective
penalties and an strong bias towards domestic well funded litigants.

I assume this judgement will be overruled but is there any penalty to seeking
and for making this sort of judgement in the first place?

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds