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
I'm curious about cross licensing | 67 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I'm curious about cross licensing
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 11:35 AM EST
It seems to me that Moto's opening offer was for a "naked" license,
and offered to consider offsetting that against Microsoft's patents. Essentially
it was an invitation to negotiate a cross license.

Microsoft also seems to have made a statement that large companies should not
have to pay as much as smaller companies. That makes no sense, if they are
making profits from using other peoples patents everyone they should pay the
same, after all they elected not to do the original development work.

---
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 | Parent | # ]

I'm curious about cross licensing
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, November 21 2012 @ 12:51 PM EST

I think he's going to have to look at cross-licensing, though. It'd be manifestly unfair to set a rate for a company that isn't offering significant cross-licensing of patents based on the rates paid by companies that are cross-licensing a significant number of important patents. At the very least you have to consider cross-licensing in the context of backing that cross-licensing's contribution out of the rates (which would bump the rates up considerably). To me that means very much considering cross-licensing during the whole process, even if you're not going to factor potential cross-licensing of MS patents into their negotiations.

[ 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 )