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
Banning worldwide? | 173 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Banning worldwide?
Authored by: kg on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 02:12 AM EST
As far as EU courts are concerned, US decisions are not
binding, unlike certain decisions made in EU courts that
apply across the entire EU (e.g., the recent UK Apple vs.
Samsung case). I really don't understand how Judge Rambo
thinks he can get away with a worldwide ban on injunctions.
That obviously puts American companies at a significant
disadvantage compared to their foreign counterparts.

Several cases I would think might be somewhat comparable
would be when Walmart fell afoul of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, or Standard Chartered Bank fell afoul of US
laws regarding transactions with Iran. Both are something
that I don't really understand, but seem to be the price of
doing business with the US.

If current trends continue, it looks like the US will drop
to 14% of the world GDP by 2021, down from nearly 32% in
2001 (source: World Bank). At that point, corporations will
need to ask themselves whether dealing with worldwide
enforcement of US laws by the US courts is worth the cost.

---
IANAL
Linguist and Open Source Developer

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The ban is based on a supposed contract that is enforceable in the US
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 08:26 AM EST
The judge's reasoning, although I don't agree with him, is that Motorola's
promises to the IEEE and ITU to offer "worldwide licenses" to these
patents on a FRAND basis constitute a contract, and that he has the authority to
enforce that contract between the two parties in this suit. He is not creating a
"worldwide ban", he is banning Motorola from violating the terms of
the contract. The terms of the contract just happen to include a promise to
offer a "worldwide license", so if Motorola were to seek an injunction
in any other country against Microsoft for those same patents they would be
violating the terms of that contract, which the judge deems enforceable in the
US..

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Banning worldwide?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 09:32 AM EST
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?

Very simple it is two US corporations, both subject to US law world wide,
playing copy wright games.

It would be a different game if one of the companies was not a US company and
not subject to US law except for what actions take place in the US.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Now you know
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 01:12 PM EST
US contract law.

[ 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 )