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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Irrelevant material | 98 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Microsoft and Motorola File Trial Briefs As Seattle Trial Draws Near~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 03:41 PM EST
I believe, and I may be wrong, that the 'trade secrets' they are trying to
protect is how much (and on what other terms) they licensed there patents out
for. A reasonable thing to want to protect from their point of view as having
that information made public would probably hurt them in future negotiations to
license the same patents.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Irrelevant material
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST
Sure it is interesting to know what those deals are, but that is totally irrelevant to the case. Groklaw clearly emphases the need to focus on the issues involved and not get sidetracked. The problem is that the Judge also already decided that he can set prices without any basis. This is a waste of tax payer money because all of these extra motions that should not be needed. It also makes it harder to follow the case.

The Judge is causing negative public value because all these other companies have now pay expensive lawyers. That results in we, the consumer, have to repay that and future expenses. Then we have to pay for the new deals including the development of those deals. On top of that, any new patents must have a higher price tag so minimize future costs and maximize profits.

The idea behind FRAND is great as it requires all companies involved to work together to make these products available to the consumer. Implementation is a very different issue. Due to cross-licensing needs, each company has a vested interest in minimizing costs as there is a limit that consumers will pay. The problem here is are the outside companies that have little or no useful technology. As there is nothing to trade, the costs will be high which of course those outside companies do not like.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )