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
Whoooooppeeeee!!! | 224 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Apple v. Motorola Dismissed with Prejudice
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 03:58 PM EST
The bully met its match!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dismissed with extreme Prejudice
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:02 PM EST
Is that the sound of Apple scrambling to negotiate a license
to prevent risk of an injunction?

No doubt they'll appeal to a higher court anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whoooooppeeeee!!!
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:08 PM EST
Wonderful!

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Crrections Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:09 PM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:10 PM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:11 PM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Thread Here...
Authored by: lnuss on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:12 PM EST
...

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread properly spelled
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:20 PM EST
Please post corrections in the properly spelled corrections thread.
If lnuss posts a correctly spelled corrections thread fast enough,
and before anyone has responded to this, I will delete this.

Please check against PDF originals before offering a correction to same.

It may be helpful to summarize the correction in the posts title.

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

Grace, even in victory.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:25 PM EST
Instead of crowing about their victory, or screeching to all who'll listen about
their opposing litigants' misdeeds, Google's spokesperson just comments on
looking forward to working out an agreement.

Class act, in my opinion. Bravo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Take away
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:45 PM EST
I can only state that if it turns out to be true that Apple
is getting strategic advice from MS that maybe this loss
might spur them to rethink that decision.

[ Reply to This | # ]

bench memorandum? groklaw 101 please
Authored by: designerfx on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:51 PM EST
Can someone explain what the significant of a bench memorandum
is, and also what it is basically as well?

[ Reply to This | # ]

with Prejudice
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:51 PM EST
Lovely.

Also, because this is my first post, thanks to everybody who works at or with
Groklaw to cover this kind of thing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Motorola Dismissed with Prejudice
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 05:08 PM EST
It appears that Apple is arguing that the 2.25% royalty rate offered by Motorola

does not qualify as a `FRAND license' offer. So they seem to be saying that
they
want the court to enforce the contract inherent in FRAND, by have the court give

a license <i>offer</i> to fulfill that contract. Hence, Apple could
then decline
that offer, and use it as a starting point in further negotiations. Given that
this
was exactly the result the court did not want to have happen, I am not surprised

that this ended with a dismissal with prejudice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ - check your email
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 05:19 PM EST
I converted the 499 PDF into several different text formats and emailed them
your way. Hopefully one of them will be useful to you.

Josh

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Stone Age Technology vs Samsung's 21st Century Technology.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 05:32 PM EST
I wonder if Apple, the badge technology company has made a
smart decision to go against high tech companie like Samsung
and Motorola.

Basically Apple is pitting its stone age technology like
rectangles, rounded corners, slide to lock latches (all
invented in the stone age, and highly dubious as to validity
now even in the context of design patents), against Samsung
and Motorola's 21st century essential patents relating to
WiFi and the like.

What is going to prevail, Apple's stone age technology or
it's rivals' 21st century technology? We are starting to get
some answers from the courts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anyone Attend?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 05:40 PM EST
I've been looking for a first hand account of the hearing this morning.

Is there one out there?

---
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 | # ]

$1 all around
Authored by: argee on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 07:59 PM EST
So, they ought to pay each other $1 per device going
forward, for the FRAND patents. If Apple wants to pay
$1 ... fine, then Motorola pays Apple $1, and Samsung pays
Apple $1 etc. Way I see it, that would be fine all
around.

I doubt Apple will go for it, because in their view, their
precious IP/Frandsies are more valuable than anyone else's.

The non-FRAND patents are a different thing, though.

It would be interesting if rounded corners were to be
determined to be FRAND by some court!


---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alice In Wonderland
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 10:10 PM EST
So even though we're still living in Wonderland, at least now
somebody's started to say: "Why, you're nothing but a pack of
cards"

Maybe there's light at the end of the rabbit-hole.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"FRAND allegations"?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 03:11 AM EST
There were no "FRAND allegations". Motorola is bound to license its standard-relevant patents under free and non-discriminatory terms according to the rules it played under when participating in the standards process.

Of course, that does not mean that Apple wasn't out in total Lala-land by claiming that this put Motorala into breach of a not-yet existing contract by asking Apple to stop taking a free ride.

"FRAND" is also not a universal given: if I understand a recent UK ruling correctly, the respective committees there decided for a requirement of free licensing under comparable conditions after it was discovered that an `independent' expert arguing for FRAND was conveniently getting paid by Microsoft.

Of course, all these shenanigans will buy Apple nothing either which way. Jobs rebuilt Apple on surfing technology, jumping from one technology bubble onto the next before it collapses like a big wave.

Now Apple is trying to ensure exclusive ownership of the wave they are on.

Wrong focus. They'll be insignificant in few years.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • re:FRAND - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 05:44 AM EST
    • re:FRAND - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 07:40 AM EST
    • re:FRAND - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 05:10 PM EST
  • surfing technology - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:51 PM EST
From what I get this should be fairly easy for Motorola
Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 08:41 AM EST
Although I expect that if it gets to a lawsuit that a lot will be filed not just
under seal but also lawyers/experts/judge only.

The sticking points as they are:
FAIR/REASONABLE - Deals with price. Can involve cross licensing, (mandatory)
certification, design implications (usually logo display), membership in an
organization and other items as non-monetary remuneration.
AND
NON-DISCRIMINATORY - Participants with standard essential patents are not
allowed to not offer a license to their patents to whomever ask for it.

The non-discriminatory part has been done. From what I've read Apple didn't even
bother to negotiate in good faith and when they didn't get their way ran to a
judge. Who then told them that that is no way to behave.

All Motorola has to do now is to show that what they offered is a reasonable
starting offer. For that all they have to do is show what (some) others are
paying including the perceived value of all non-monetary remunerations. Which is
why I expect a lot of only for the judge & lawyers type of documents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Motorola Dismissed with Prejudice
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 10:44 AM EST
As far as I can read from this lawsuit, Apple is still not paying motorola
anything for its standards essential patents (SEPs).

Let's assume that this ruling stands upon appeal. Doesn't Motorola still need to
sue Apple to pay a royalty for those SEPs? And as far as I can tell, those SEPs
are still subject to FRAND/RAND licensing terms. So if Motorola and Apple can't
come to agreement, a court will eventually decide the rate anyway.

It looks to me like Apple didn't want the court to decide the FRAND rate right
now. They could've agreed to Moto's request that whatever the court decided be
binding, but they obviously weren't THAT eager to settle unless it was on their
terms. Maybe that's because they're hoping that the 2.25% royalty that Moto is
asking from Apple and Microsoft will get shot down as non-FRAND in the Moto-MS
trial and they will be in a much better bargaining position when the
negotiations start again. And it seems that there is very little doubt it will
be shot down, as otherwise the patent pools for SEPs would quickly exceed 100%
of the net selling price of devices.

My take is that Apple preferred to have this lawsuit dismissed than take the
chance that they would pay a royalty rate higher than they liked. Their lawyers
aren't dumb, so I can only assume they think their chances of getting a rate
they want will improve over time as Moto's 2.25% FRAND rate is evaluated in
other trials

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Big Question
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 01:21 PM EST
or rather three questions from me, and probably more from you,
Will Posner & Crabb be shunned by the system as renegades?
"System" means from lowly attorneys venue shopping
thru to the circuit bench who will rule over them.

How long will it take (if ever) for their glimmer of common sense
to pierce the fog of greed and ignorance?

Is anyone thinking of the children? The children will use, probably
much sooner than any of these lawyers and judges can guess,
technology that does not depend on any of these patents. They
will be puzzled by the waste of so much time, money and intellect.

[ 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 )