|
|
|
| Authored by: nslm on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 02:51 AM EST |
With the original injunction the judge felt the need to address the issue of
comity. He did so by saying that the completion of this US legal
proceeding would result in Microsoft having a license.
This lasest ruling he does not address the issue of comity, yet he goes
further than before. Effectively ruling that no US based company may get
an injunction, even outside the US, for an SEP. This is even though the
patents involved are outside his jurisdiction, with a process in place
whereby the injunction could be easily remedied, simply by following the
orange book procedure. The closest he comes is saying that under US
law an injunction is only available for permanent and irreparable harm.
Germany has a different standard. The injunction is available as a
mechanism for forcing people who refuse to come to the negotiating
table to start negotiations, this is German law.
This is especially important since so far as I can tell the contract is an
implicit contract, not an explicit contract Microsoft could point to exact
lines in showing that US law is the governing law.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
