|
|
|
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 07:09 PM EST |
But RIM did not assert enough legal effort.
Their BoD essentially capitulated, convincing
themselves that it was not worth the cost.
When corrupted by money moles are in place,
they may be intentionally losing on purpose.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clemenstimpler on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 10:06 PM EST |
I've long taken the position (as has Groklaw, IIRC) that a patent
troll should not be able to get a preliminary injunction (the key word being
"preliminary") against an (alleged) infringer, as someone who is not practicing
the patent (and potentially competing against the infringer) is not suffering
any harm that can't be cured by damages.
Motorola has been
practicing the patents - how else should they be part of a
standard?
An argument can be made the same ought to apply to RAND
patents--that a RAND licenser is forgoing some level
of exclusivity, including
the right to claim harm from losing market share to a competing
product.
You conveniently forget to mention that those who wish to
use the standard should first negotiate in good faith.
The courts
(unfortunately) have held otherwise in the case of trolls--taking the position,
it seems, that not being able to hold the other party over a barrel (by blocking
shipment of an allegedly-infringing product), itself constitutes irreparable
harm. (IIRC, it was the case that seriously damaged RIM several years ago--the
troll was granted a PI, and able to extract an unfair settlement
out of RIM,
prior to the patent office throwing out the patent; RIM raised the issue and was
denied by the court).
I do not quite see how going into
negotiations over patents is equal to 'being held over a
barrel'.
That said, a consistent position on when injunctive relief
is available would be nice.
Before that, some clarification of
your contribution might be in order.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
