|
|
|
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 01:57 AM EST |
But the judge here hasn't said an injunction is "never" allowed, just
that since money will make Motorola whole, an injunction *now* is not
warranted.
I agree with the judge on this. There is nothing wrong with the injunction not
being allowed at this time. As long as at the end of the game, MS is ordered to
take a license at FRAND rates, which may be $2.25, plus interest, and damages
for having abused the courts to act as a negotiator.
All this I would say is fair and reasonable *if and only if* the party at play
here was a company that has never been found guilty of: stealing the copyrighted
works of other companies, using it's monopoly power to force other companies out
of business, used illegal business policies to kill other companies possible
products in the market, used all manner of illegal and/or immoral tactics to
delay justice in order to drive companies out of business, etc.
In other words, were the company at issue here any other company than Microsoft,
I'd agree with the judge that no injunction should be issued at this point. But
given Microsoft's history I see no other possible ruling than an injunction. And
that any license that Microsoft is required to take at this juncture could be
added to the case and if found that it is indeed not within FRAND guideline,
then any money in excess of that FRAND range be disgorged by Motorola, plus
interest, and if Motorola is shown to have acted in bad faith, or what-not, they
be hit with damages. No harm no foul.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Quite - Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 03:23 AM EST
|
|
|
|
