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
Microsoft v. Motorola Trial in Seattle, Day 3 and Judge Crabb Explains Dismissal of Apple v. Motorola~pj | 50 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Microsoft v. Motorola Trial in Seattle, Day 3 and Judge Crabb Explains Dismissal of Apple v. Motorola~pj
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 08:16 AM EST

One argument suggests the price of the patent licence should not be higher then the component that does the bigger action where some little elements would be patented. Somewhat my feeling also.

Suppose you are a brilliant inventor, and after much effort, you invent a perpetual motion machine that really works. You immediately patent it, and begin to sell your machine as an electrical generator. Suppose these sell like hot cakes. Because of it's popularity, you realize vast economies of scale in it's manufacture, and are able to drop the price down to a few dollars.

Someone wants to license the perpetual motion machine component of the generator from you so he can make a variation on the product. If he insists the value of such a license should be tied to the cost of the machines you sell, would you be moved by such an argument?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Microsoft v. Motorola Trial in Seattle, Day 3 and Judge Crabb Explains Dismissal of Apple v. Motorola~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 05:50 PM EST
If Motorola could show that it's patents are no worse then the ones others, like
MS and Apple, are using in their strategies, this would somewhat turn into the
process of the patent system.
Every negative point mentioned about Motorola's patents and demands would
reflect on the whole patent system like it is practised now.
Actually, if the court would really fix an amount, and call it the reasonable
maximum, a simple division would give us a factor that would give us how many
times some amounts are beyond any reason. What was Apple asking again?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Microsoft v. Motorola Trial in Seattle, Day 3 and Judge Crabb Explains Dismissal of Apple v. Motorola~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2012 @ 07:29 PM EST
One argument suggests the price of the patent licence should not be higher then the component that does the bigger action where some little elements would be patented.

With pharmaceuticals and many speciality chemicals, the price of a patent license makes up the bulk of the total cost of the end product. The raw materials and processing costs are often trivial when produced on a large scale. So, following your argument would mean overturning established practice on a very wide scale.

Surely in the case of software that can be obtained free of charge.

So if I give away my software I should be able to ignore Microsoft's software patents? I don't think that Microsoft would be willing to go along with that idea. I think that you will find that Microsoft's view with regards to patents would be very self serving. To them, other people's patents are worthless, while their own are extremely valuable and deserving of protection.

[ 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 )