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
Microsoft v. Motorola Trial in Seattle, Day 2 ~pj | 137 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections please
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:25 PM EST
hint in the title helps

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:25 PM EST
Off tropic too

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:25 PM EST
Read all abaaarrrt it

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes documents
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 09:26 PM EST
Keep them coming

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe a dumb question
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 10:21 PM EST
This may be a dumb question or maybe I just don't understand. Microsoft is
arguing breech of contract, with the contract being the FRAND agreement,
correct? Yet it doesn't appear that Microsoft ever negotiated with Motorola,
which is also part of the "contract". If thats the case, wouldn't the
contract be non enforceable? I guess I am wondering why this court would get
into the middle of this dispute when the FRAND agreement hasn't even been
attempted, much less reached a stalemate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Non sequetor
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:06 PM EST
According to the report;

"Letter was sent to Motorola asking for RAND license. Letter was sent at
Microsoft's request for indemnification. She understood that Motorola would
offer FRAND terms"

RAND and FRAND are not necessarily equivalent.

---
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 | # ]

A special thanks to our courtroom reporters
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 14 2012 @ 11:15 PM EST
We really owe you.

Are we able to cover the rest of the trial?

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

do we have a horse?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 02:08 AM EST
I am wondering what would be in public interest? It won't be fare to dismiss
Motorola patents but leave M$ license theirs for ridiculous amounts.
Can somehow both - Motorola and M$ patents (especially software related) to be
dismissed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

paired macroblock, zigzag scan
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 03:56 AM EST
I wonder if the judge has the faintest idea what these
are...

I'm a software guy (in an unrelated field), and I have no
good understanding of this, I suspect it's quite a deep
field and needs a lot of math to properly understand.

I guess he'll follow the gist presented by the series of
biased "experts" and make a decision without understanding
the technology in a meaningful way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft v. Motorola Trial in Seattle, Day 2 ~pj
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 06:50 AM EST

There were things said like you'd never convert from progressive to interlaced. Really? What if you're a television broadcaster and you broadcast in interlaced only and got your recordings from a progressive source?

It's even more common than that. Every over-the-air converter box (the kind subsidized by the FCC's "coupon" program last decade during the digital transition) converts to NTSC 525-line interlaced presentation for compatibility with legacy analog TV sets. Every time a user tunes one of those boxes to a 720p (1280x720 progressive scan) station, conversion from progressive-scan to interlaced-scan occurs.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interlaced video television broadcasts
Authored by: jheisey on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 09:32 AM EST
In my city, there are eleven TV stations that have digital broadcasts. Of these
stations, only two broadcast a video stream in the 720p progressive format. All
the remaining stations broadcast their signals in various combinations of 1080i
and 480i (interlaced). So here at least, interlaced video is much more widely
used than progressive video.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft v. Motorola Trial in Seattle, Day 2 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 09:39 AM EST
Says Motorola patents are not critical; some are about to expire. Not critical to Microsoft products
If the Moto patents are SOOOO non-critical, why couldn't Microsoft design their systems without them? If they absolutely HAD to use the Moto patents, that is absolutely the definition of critical.

When purchasing something for my job, i have to give solid reasoning for purchasing something from a single source vendor. I would assume the same process would apply for using a patent owned by a competitor. Apparently the reasoning the Microsoft employee gave is that "it is expiring soon anyway, who cares." Well, it's not expired yet, so pay up.

~ukjaybrat - IANAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Strip Club Reference
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 10:32 AM EST
The Seattle Times reports

http://seattletimes.com/text/2019676880.html

“I don’t believe this courtroom has been this full since the strip-club
ordinance,” referring to when he ruled in 2005 that Seattle’s ban on new strip
clubs was unconstitutional.



---
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 | # ]

What's in a name?
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 12:08 PM EST
Hearing about all those enhancements to the video codec that MPEG LA made, you
might have overlooked the name.

It is the name of the Recommendation jointly devised by ISO and the ITU as two
of the three largest specialised agencies of the United Nations and published by
the ITU as Recommendation H264.

It was produced by drawing on the expertise of experts from around the world.

The 802.11 standard is the IEEE published standard intended to be used around
the world for wifi in the home. Again, it is not invented by Americans for use
in America. The FRAND assurance was intended to aid its adoption as a world wide
standard to provide interoperability in world wide markets.

It was offered, as such, to the ITU and is now an international recommendation
under the auspices of the United Nations as Recommendation ITU-R M.1450-4.

The way they talked in court, you'd have thought they were both American
property.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patents and WebM
Authored by: J.F. on Thursday, November 15 2012 @ 04:02 PM EST
Wasn't the whole objection to WebM over H.264 in HTML5 that both Apple and MS
had licenses to H.264? Now it seems that MS has been skimping on the H.264
license. Is Apple in a similar situation? Perhaps the discussion on WebM could
be brought back up given these recent turns.

[ 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 )