|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 07:06 PM EST |
Apple claims it has standing as a third-party beneficiary of the contract - that
is,
Apple is one of the intended beneficiaries of the FRAND agreement between
Motorola and IEEE/ETSI. If Motorola had sued for an injunction without first
offering a FRAND license to Apple, this would in fact be the case, Motorola had
violated a contract and Apple had been harmed. However, that is not case,
hence the dismissal with prejudice.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 07:55 PM EST |
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that the perceived fairness or lack
thereof in the FRAND process has much to do with the litigation Apple has
embarked upon. This is all more about throwing road-blocks in the way of
Android's success. The FRAND process is merely an unfortunate vehicle being
used (abused) in order to gain an advantage in the marketplace. All this is
merely sleight of hand designed to distract people from seeing the true motives
and objectives behind all this court action. P.J. is one of the few correctly
reporting this aspect of this litigation.
It pains me to see the FRAND process
defaced and abused in a such a manner. The market will survive, corporations
will come and go but I would hate to see anything untoward happen to the FRAND
process that has kept us knee-deep in cool kit and gadgets all these
years.
Translation: Apple I know what your are doing and I will hold you
responsible for any damage you cause to FRAND.
3514v from an anon machine[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 07:56 PM EST |
The way to understand fully is to read the
filings.
From my reading, I believe Apple's position was
that it's a third-party beneficiary of the contract
and hence entitled to a license. The standards
bodies involved in this dispute don't get involved
in negotiations, leaving it to the courts, if
the parties are unable to agree.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|