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
Microsoft v. Motorola - The 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals Ruling, as Text ~pj | 119 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: FreeChief on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT
Put a short summary of the correction in the title.

Example: Ta. ::= Corrections here

 — Programmer in Chief

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft v. Motorola - The 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals Ruling, as Text ~pj
Authored by: jvillain on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT
Does any one know what the German Governments views are on the US declaring
their laws null and void? Surely they must be wondering WT? In Canada we have
gotten used to the US deciding our laws don't apply to Americans but I would
think Germany would have a little more back bone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:23 PM EDT
Please make links clickable

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes transcribing
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:24 PM EDT
Thank you for your support

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jurisdiction?
Authored by: AH1 on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:43 PM EDT
Can anyone explain to me why a District Court in Washington State and the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals actually believes that they have Jurisdiction in this
case? From what I understand about the RAND agreements they are an agreement
between members of the ITU. I can see where members of the ITU in the U.S.
might be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts for disagreements within
the United States, I do not understand how this can apply in an international
setting though. The German courts have made it clear that they do not recognize
third party agreements per their laws and the RAND is a third party agreement.
I did a search for ITU treaties and RAND based treaties and came up empty. So
it does not look like there is even an international agreement here. From where
I sit, it looks like the Federal Courts in the 9th Circuit have once again
overstepped their authority. Is there something I have missed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft v. Motorola - The 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals Ruling, as Text ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT
"What it promised to do, as the ruling itself quotes, is to *negotiate* a
license:"

IANAL, but I think you are missing something from your analysis?

In England we would treat this kind of promise as a "covenant" (rather
than a license) which is an old common law thing, like a contract but it doesn't
require that either side benefits (at least initially).

They are most commonly used now for things like sales of land built on the site
of old factories to say you cannot compete with the business that sold the
land.

So I think the court(s) is correct to say there is a sort of implied contract?

[ Reply to This | # ]

So Motorola is prohibited from posting the required bond
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 09:11 PM EDT
Which is necessary to enforce the injunction...

I wonder if it would be possible for anyone else to post it
on their behalf.

There must be no shortage of organisations that would like
to stick it to Microsoft, and possibly even some who would
financially benefit from blocking their German sales.

Cough... Sony?

No idea if that would be possible or legal...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • I have a tenner, how much do we need? :-) n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 09:14 PM EDT
  • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 07:53 AM EDT
    • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 09:02 AM EDT
    • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT
      • Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT
FRAND and RAND - what are they, really?
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT
Wiktionary:

FRAND "Fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory; a standard used with respect to licensing"

RAND "Reasonable and nondiscriminatory; a standard used with respect to licensing."


Could someone please give a better, more vivid description? How do we know this case is either of them? Thanks in advance!


---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fortunately, google is patient
Authored by: pem on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 12:42 AM EDT
It will be interesting to see what happens with the appeals process in Germany.

If Motorola wins the appeal (or if Microsoft doesn't appeal properly), it would
appear the injunction could issue without Motorola posting a bond or taking any
other action.

That would be when things would get interesting. A court in the US ruling that
Motorola has to license patents worldwide, vs. a court in Germany ruling that
Microsoft has to stop shipping.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft v. Motorola - The 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals Ruling, as Text ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 12:51 AM EDT
So why doesn't Motorola just ask the German court to enjoin Microsoft from
enforcing the injunction enjoining Motorola from enforcing its patent
enforcement injunction? :-)

Sure, such an injunction would be just as much poppycock as the US injunction in
terms of the jurisdiction of a court in one country to prevent the enforcement
of an injunction from a court in another country, but the point of this would be
for the German court to say to the US court "We have just as much or as
little jurisdiction to do this as you do. Now that we've done it to you, we
trust you'll realize how absurd it is and stop it."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Contempt of court
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 01:40 AM EDT
Is this where we see the German courts charging Microsoft or its agents with
contempt?

It seems to me (IANAL) that it is fairly contemptuous of country's court to go
to another country's court and get an injunction preventing the enforcement of
the first's ruling.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Delay game until the XBox 720 is ready
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 12:05 PM EDT
The industry and consumers are just waiting for the next XBox
as the bulk of sales already has occurred. Now Microsoft just
has to delay this until they release the next XBox. Then we
get to start this again depending on what things go into the
next version and how Microsoft avoids these issues.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Notice apple and MS with the exact same FRAND def
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT
Notice that Apple and MS have he exact same FRAND
misunderstanding and negotiation failures?

Not that I agree with FRAND however i think this is out of
MS's sink Linux anyway they can playbook and they just handed
the playbook around to anyone who would like to copy it..

I would point out to Apple that MS partners tend to loose
market share rather than gain when they adopt MS
tactics..just ask Nokia

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cameras in the Courtroom
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 03:05 PM EDT
Definitely Groklaw should ask for this proceeding to be videoed. My guess is
that Google(Motorola) will agree and Microsoft will oppose. If the case is not
recorded we will probably not find out who stopped it, since the local rules say
that that information will not be disclosed.

Reading the guidelines I'm not sure when the videos will become available. They
speak of recording and uploading the videos so there may be some delay in their
availability.



---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

East Texas Juries
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 11:32 PM EDT
The Juory Expert
East Texas Jurors and Patent Litigation
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/east-texas-jurors-and-patent-litigation/

[ 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 )