|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 07:56 AM EDT |
Looks all very complex to me.
I am not sure that both requirements of RAND can not be already
in conflict with themselves. What if non-discriminatory is in
conflict with reasonable? What if negotiating comes in conflict
with non-discriminatory? Is it stated somewhere that reasonable
means on a lower price than other patents? Unless it does what
can be more reasonable then asking the same price as the other
party asks for it's non-RAND patents? But are we still non-
discriminatory then?
As I understand, if this was an international treaty, the text of
the treaty would have priority over national law. If not, the
treaty would be meaningless. But I don't think it can be seen as
a treaty, even like it is set in an international and not a
national context. But would it not be proper that this kind of
disputes goes to an international court? And is not being
interpreted as a local contract.
I think any international law rule here should be symmetrical.
Meaning if a German court was in the same situation, it could
block the court in the US and thus influence the situation on the
US market. Is this the case?
Looks anyway way to complex to me. See
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/1979/911/2/doctoraat.pdf.
And perhaps
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061121020905AAVSbA4
Some Germans courts, contradictory to other European courts, seem
to be ready to interpret patent regulations more in favor of the
patent holder. The consequence in the patent game should be that
litigating patent holders could find that other patents also will
be interpreted strictly against them, perhaps creating a balance
between the big players. What now if German public opinion would
make a big issue of US intervention for one party on his home
market? An intervention that possibly will be limiting consumers
chose in German in the future. Would the legal tests still stand
the court is describing in his ruling?
If a RAND contract, assuming this is a contract, would make no
sense in German law, and I understand it doesn't, can an US court
tell US company's that within Germany they should still obey that
contract? Looks like an invitation to Motorola to play the game
in the same way as Microsoft does and put the patents to the
disposal of some German construction, and the first rule of the
Gallo framework would already fail. And, if I understand
Microsoft's logic, that entity would not even be bound by
Motorola's ITU declarations[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
The German government is looking sideways, as far as I can gather from the news
reports here in Germany.
And it is for sure not the first time a US Court thinks the US rules the world.
We here in Europe are used to such shenanigans from US courts or the US
government, when it comes to the US perverting the course of justice (cf.
H.R.4775, protecting US war criminals).
That ruling is just business as usual and just fits the picture.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 12:24 AM EDT |
From Section C of the 9th circuits decision:
"the anti-suit injunction . . .
bars Motorola not from
pursuing its German patent claims against Microsoft
altogether, but
only from posting the bond required to enforce the
German injunction."
Neither court is directly disputing German law
or the German court's decision . . .
just barring Motorola from posting the
bond necessary to enforce the German injunction.
Hmmm . . . guess that's
"reasonable" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
