|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 01:28 PM EST |
Caveat: It's altogether highly probably - like 99% or higher - that I missed
something in the exchange with regards the Court handling.
Remember,
it was Apple that wanted SEP rates set (no injunctive
relief).
Absolutely! We're all agreed on that point. Apple wanted
the Court to set the SEP rates instead of entering good faith negotiations.
Side note: you didn't indicate whether or not you view this as a normal tactic
or something novel! I certainly hope it's a novel tactic Apple
used.
The brilliant tactic close to trial
by QE in this case was
that they, a week prior to trail,
filed a motion to have Apple commit to the
court-ordered
rates.
Also agreed! Although in my humble opinion
un-necessary. Why un-necessary? Because as a non-Legal my understanding of the
Legal system is that a Court ruling is Official. You obey the ruling or you
risk - at the very least - spending time in jail on Contempt Of Court charges
until you do obey. Your only possibility is to appeal the
decision.
Apple responded by saying sure, but if they were "too
high" (over a $1 per unit), they they'd contest the rates.
This
is the part that - for quite a few of us - showed Apple's true intent.
Deliberately disobey a Court Ruling because they don't like it?
That is
what has formed the opinion of many of us where we'll just have to agree to
disagree that my opinion does not match yours on the meaning of what
happened.
The exception - the part with the greater then 99% probability
that could alter my opinion - is this:
Did such a request to have Apple
honor the decision preclude Apple filing an Appeal?
I can see if Apple
would have been precluded filing an Appeal how they might not have liked that.
But if they could still Appeal and contest the decision on the FRAND rates -
then Apple really has no excuse for not explicitly agreeing to that which is
already implicitly understood with regards normal Court proceedings.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 02:19 PM EST |
You are mistaken. It was partly with prejudice
and partly without. So it's not back to square
one at all.
You are also violating our comments policy. Please
read it.
You certainly make a lot of factual errors for
someone claiming to be a litigator. I hope you
perform better in your alleged line of work.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|