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
One reason Microsoft sought this trial | 98 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
One reason Microsoft sought this trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 04:57 AM EST
Yes, I know that and I'm aware MS is trying to play the system. That doesn't
mean I think a reasonable court couldn't rule in Microsoft's favour here,
although I'd hope they consider the full picture.

That it's a standard initial offer has nothing to do with whether it's
reasonable and very little to do with whether it's non-discriminatory though I'd
suggest.

Why? Because even if you offer the "same" terms to everyone the
implications are different. Per unit royalties discriminate against free
software. % of *end* (not even "windows", the actual PC although I
think they've backed away from this now?) products also obviously have pretty
large implications for a company making a component of a larger product. How is
the judge going to sort any of this out? I have no idea.

About the only licensing terms that wouldn't disadvantage a particular party
would be royalty free, but we all know how likely that is (and certainly
shouldn't be forced in this context).

It's frustrating to see so much effort wasted over patents that shouldn't have
been issued on both sides.

[ 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 )