|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 02:41 PM EST |
Incidentally, your description of Apple's position
is also factually wrong.
Apple was not willing to accept the court's FRAND rate unless it liked it, so
she decided not to set one. But don't take it from me.
Here's the judge herself
in her Nov.
2nd order:
Since issuing the October 29 order, it has become
clear that Apple’s interest in a license is qualified. In its response to
Motorola’s motion for clarification on the specific performance issue, Apple
states that it will not commit to be bound by any FRAND rate determined by the
court and will not agree to accept any license from Motorola unless the court
sets a rate of $1 or less for each Apple phone. Apple’s Resp. Br., dkt. #448
at 8. In other words, if Apple is unsatisfied with the rate chosen by the court,
it “reserves the right to refuse and proceed to further infringement
litigation.” Id. at 2. Despite its position, Apple maintains that it is entitled
to specific performance in the form of the court determining what a FRAND rate
is for Motorola’s patents. At the final pretrial conference, I asked Apple to
explain why it believed the court should determine a FRAND rate even though the
rate may not resolve the parties’ licensing or infringement disputes. I
questioned whether it was appropriate for a court to undertake the complex task
of determining a FRAND rate if the end result would be simply a suggestion that
could be used later as a bargaining chip between the parties. Apple responded
that the rate would resolve the dispute in this particular case, namely, whether
Motorola’s license offer was FRAND and if not, what the rate should have
been.
Apple’s response was not satisfactory and did not assuage my concerns
about determining a FRAND rate that may be used solely as a negotiating tool
between the parties. After further consideration, I believe it would be
inappropriate to grant Apple’s clarified request for specific performance.
How can you be a lawyer if you
miss such obvious things? If you
are, or you are not, I would ask you to stop pretending to know things you do
not know, and at least research before you make assertions on Groklaw. I don't
care what you do elsewhere, as I am not your mom. But here, I care about
accuracy, and you are not meeting the bar set for that on Groklaw.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 02:45 PM EST |
It was back to square one for FRAND claims and defenses. But
you know that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Ouch - Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 04:29 PM EST
|
|
|
|
