|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 05:53 PM EST |
Read this article while jamming out...
"I'm not going away, I'm not going
Try so hard to break me but all your diamonds turn to sand."
How appropriate. If these proprietary companies would leave Linux alone (and
the freedoms associated with it) long enough, we'll actually get to see the full
potential that Linux can bring.
May all future attempts by Apple and MS to squash those freedoms be equally
thwarted!
Thank you, PJ, for keeping us abreast of their efforts.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 07:40 PM EST |
How can this be a surprise?
Apple wanted the court to enforce specific performance on a contract they were
not a party to. Neither party to the contract believed that Motorola was in
breach. Especially since Apple hadn't followed the documented FRAND negotiation
and arbitration process. How could the judge rule differently?
Some of the stories were written with the viewpoint that the $1 per phone was
the major issue. I don't see that at all. Apple was just saying "If it's
under $1 per phone, we'll just pay to settle. If it's more, it's probably
worthwhile to spend a few years in court to invalidate the patents or reduce the
rate." That sounds a bit threatening, but it's really just an opening bid
in negotiations.
The court, quite correctly, didn't want to be drawn into setting a one-sided
price. Apple wouldn't be bound to licensing at that price, but it would force
Motorola to use it as a maximum. That would only benefit Apple in negotiations.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Whoooooppeeeee!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 07:47 PM EST
|
|
|
|
