|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
dang...I need to become a lawyer if this is the way things go.
Can't wait to fight all the battles over how to prove "cost to
develop" something. I think I would liken it to how no movie
EVER makes a profit![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
So the tax for invalid Microsoft patents that don't even apply to Android code,
that it has used repeatedly to impose a tax on Android is fine, but someone
imposing the tax on Microsoft is bad?
Sorry, Microsoft is just getting back what it's given.
Google, through Motorola is following the Golden Rule Extension. Give back
unto others what they gave unto you.
Make it so that it costs twice as much as Microsoft charges to license all the
patents it needs to sell a product.
Put them out of business for stealing / using patented materials without
licensure.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BJ on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
The cross licensing would set a clear precedent.
$MS sooner would take good care of the judge, if
he reciprocates.
bjd
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 17 2012 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
Isn't this what a negotiation is for?
Motorola is asking for 2.25%, that does not mean, that will be
the final price, but if you are going to negotiate, it's best
you start at the ceiling and then Microsoft should make a
counter offer, which will obviously be less than 2.25% and
probably less than what the patent is really worth, but they
skipped that part, didn't they[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18 2012 @ 04:52 AM EDT |
Sure sounds like it.
I can't think of anyone else who would argue a rate that
other companies are paying is not fair and reasonable.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
