|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|