|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 05:42 PM EST |
General congratulations. Block away, we have no desire to hear more from him.
I hope that this does come back to bite MS. At present, there is only one offer
on the table, Samsung's. A just court would simply accept that.
Judge: "I rule that Microsoft has made some good points, my decision is
that the amount should be halfway between Sumsung and Microsoft's best offers.
Oh, MS hasn't made an offer? Ah well, Samsung's initial offer stands." [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Applause!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 06:22 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 07:18 PM EST |
Your ability to remain patient, and slow to anger always amazes me. The example
you set is a yardstick for all to measure up to! :) l[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 09:47 AM EST |
Hey PJ-
Maybe you can clarify a bit. My understanding was that the trial was going to be
broken into two parts. The first part related to setting a reasonable FRAND/RAND
range or (hopefully) a formula to do this so that parties can come together out
of court and reach an agreement without wasting time and money. The second part
of the trial was going to determine whether Motorola had violated its agreement
with standards bodies. This is from an article published in Ars technica
yesterday (which is obviously not a legal site). Did they get their info wrong?
Is the second part of the trial canceled now? If not, wouldn't violating
agreements with standards bodies be the equivalent of FRAND abuse or is there a
legal distinction I'm missing?
Also, is there a royalty level the judge would determine that in retrospect
would have you would consider the 2.25% offer to not be a serious offer? For
instance, if the judge found that a royalty rate of 0.025% (100x lower) was
appropriate for these patents, would you acknowledge after the trial that
Motorola's offer was more an attempt to leverage SEPs in a defensive manner
rather than negotiate in good faith?
I understand that you believe that Apple and Microsoft are trying to overvalue
their patents (most of which aren't standards essential and have no licensing
restrictions) and undervalue Motorolas (many of which are SEPs and do have
licensing restrictions), but are there any potential outcomes where you would
feel Motorola overplayed its hand, or do the ends justify the means in this
case?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
