|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 01:50 AM EST |
I'd like the judiciary of another Soveriegn state take issue with the US Courts
for trying to impose rulings in the country.
Trying to ban legal moves worldwide is IMHO like the boy trying to stop the
water leaking from a Dam with his finger. Pointless.
I'd really like to know what law gives this judge (clearly biased towards the
home team and giving Moto plent of grounds for appeals from here to kingdom
come) the right to make these sort of rulings that apply worldwide?
Is he stepping beyond his remit? How can his ruling apply outside the US? How
can he enforce it?
I think that this might be worthy of a Groklaw investigation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kg on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 01:55 AM EST |
Looks like this judge decided to ignore facts and logic. By
his reasoning, injunctions can never be issued if a money
value can be placed on the patents in question. Microsoft
may end up falling on their own sword.
What I don't get is why willfully refusing to license
applicable IP shouldn't get an injunction. If the product is
found to be infringing and the rights owner offers RAND
terms which are summarily rejected by the offender, the only
possible remedy is an injunction to force the infringing
party to come to the table.
On the other hand, this decision basically undermines
existing IP laws, including selling copyright products.
Filesharing, anyone?
---
IANAL
Linguist and Open Source Developer[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 09:26 AM EST |
| Does not the Constitution forbid courts from interfering in foreign parts? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 07:27 PM EST |
My biggest issue with this is that the judge is going to set the rate. What
gives him the authority to do that? The agreement of the standard left the rate
up to the parties to negotiate. Changing the rules of an agreement after the
fact is not very cool. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: darrellb on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 10:34 AM EST |
The logic applies in other cases where the FRAND patent holder
approaches a potential licensee about licensing admittedly in-use patented
subject matter and the potential licensee sues in a friendly forum and
convinces the court to exceed the court's discretion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dcs on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 12:07 PM EST |
The judge's logic is simple: RAND means you have to license,
and if you have to license then monetary damages are enough
unless the other party refuses to license.
I take issue with the premise: the contracts seem pretty
clear that you have to negotiate, not license. But if you
take that premise as a given, I, for one, agree with this
ruling.
And, as it happens, the injunctions being sought by
Microsoft and Apple are not for RAND patents, so the logic
simply does not apply.
The only thing I really disagree with in this ruling is the
international part of it. Sure, both companies are american,
but that doesn't mean the patent deal has to be world wide -
- other countries have other rules, and the above logic
might simply not apply at all.
Such as in German. There, the Microsoft subsidiary is
required to go through a particular mediation process if it
doesn't reach an agreement with the Motorola subsidiary --
for the European-issued patents under the European
agreements -- or face injunction. That is exactly what
happened.
Or, to put in another way, while lack of irreparable harm is
enough in the USA to prevent injunction, that might not be
the case elsewhere.
---
Daniel C. Sobral
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
