decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Analysis of the Pennsylvania vs. NCAA antitrust suit | 364 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Analysis of the Pennsylvania vs. NCAA antitrust suit
Authored by: vidstudent on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 11:54 AM EST
http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2013/01/articles/series/special-comment/corbet
t-antitrust-ncaa/

Not the most relevant to software, certainly, but the debate in the article's
comments is a treat I imagine one normally has to go to a law school to hear.

---
Nicholas Eckert
vidstudent

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google 100 FTC 0 - Google to MS: "Ha HA!"
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 01:26 PM EST
Nelson - ha ha!

Google looks to have only agreed to do stuff they already do D'oh!

While Google made some voluntary changes to satisfy regulators, they weren't part of a binding legal settlement. That drew a stinging dissent from FTC Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, who didn't advocate suing Google, but said that in principle the FTC should require legally binding consent decrees if problems are found. "After promising an elephant more than a year ago, the Commission instead has brought forth a couple of mice," Mr. Rosch said.#


Google Dodges Antitrust Hit FTC Extracts Limited Concessions, Clears Web Giant of 'Search Bias' After Probe

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A non-biased report from Dan Lyons?
Authored by: DMP on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 02:43 PM EST
I'm flabbergasted reading the Google FTC article by Dan Lyons. After the SCO episodes, it seems that he is now writing non-biased articles. Could it be that the SCO episodes were biased because of an unknown paymaster contributor?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

SEP injunction ruling: Google now have a good argument that 6 months is an appropriate delay.
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:15 PM EST
Quote from the Register comments by Paul Shirley:

"unreported detail of the SEP injunction ruling
Details are now emerging that the FTC *did not* forbid
seeking injunctions on Googles standards essential patents.
What they actually did was require a 6months negotiation
window *before* seeking injunctions. Paradoxically that may
actually be massively helpful to Google. I can understand
why the usual sources of PR sent to the Reg might not want
to highlight this...
One problem with FRAND licensing is it rarely sets time
limits on the negotiation or acquisition of licenses. That
makes companies cautious about going to court because courts
tend to refuse to deal with cases till far more than 6months
of failed negotiation has passed. Motorola waited several
years before even asking for injunctions against Apple for
example.
Companies (and Google specifically) now have a good argument
that 6 months is an appropriate delay. They can now initiate
negotiations and if, like Apple, the other side stonewalls
for 6 months they have a much improved chance of getting an
injunction quickly. Getting it while the products are still
selling. Getting it years quicker.
The other aspect is that injunctions on FRAND patents where
the other side showed willingness and good faith negotiation
were already being consistently denied by the courts, the
FTC changed nothing there. However many observers believe
some higher US courts are swinging alarmingly to outright
banning these injunctions even with bad faith from potential
licensees, this FTC decision might just bring them back to a
more balanced position.
Bear in mind this was kicked off by Motorola finally losing
patience with Apple over negotiating a FRAND rate. After
several years. Apple's refusal to negotiate means this FTC
ruling doesn't apply. The licence manoeuvres that led to
Apple needing a licence are a different issue that the FTC
doesn't seem interested in."

Spot on

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

non-taxed patents
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:10 PM EST
In light of previous discussions here on patents, what are the taxations on patents?

According to many they do represent a worth oa lot of money. At least when they can wrest someone into obedience.

Here is a new take on taxes - Swiss banks handing out hidden money!

Do you think this means we are at least one step closer to internationally eradicate all the hidden money, perhaps even in non-taxed patents?!

So, how much tax have Microsoft and Apple payed for all those thousands of patents they have bought the last decade?!

I guess they must have payed the Federal Government hundreds of millions of dollars; at least, if considering the numbers many have claimed their worths to be.

Does anyone have any numbers on what, e.g. Apple has payed in taxes for the worth of their patents?



---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Well well well small world...www.wired.com "Doug Miller" SafeGov
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 08:12 PM EST
<a href="http://www.wired.com/insights/2013/01/ftc-and-
google-no-market-no-foul/?">FTC and Google: No Market, No
Foul</a>

Is this by the same "Doug Miller" as named in this article:
http://readwrite.com/2013/01/03/googles-ftc-settlement-is-
an-epic-fail-for-microsoft

Quote:
"The SafeGov 'Grassroots' Campaign

More recently, as Google started trying to sell Google Apps
to government agencies - competing against Microsoft Office
by offering much lower prices - Microsoft helped create a
new group called SafeGov.org, another so-called “grassroots”
organization whose mission supposedly is to discuss issues
around government computing policies, but really ends up
being just another front for bashing Google.

SafeGov’s "experts" include Doug Miller of Milltech
Consulting, who used to work at Microsoft doing “competitive
strategy,” and earlier this year disclosed a consulting
relationship with Microsoft."

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Google Maps Shuts out Windows Phone
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 08:27 PM EST
Link

My take:

I'm sorry. Google can write a Windows Phone version of Maps only if Microsoft writes a Linux version of Excel, Word, and an Outlook client. I have yet to see a fully functional Linux mail client that works with the Exchange Mail server. And even Microsoft Web Mail is a second class next to unusable experience on Firefox as Microsoft attempts to maintain monopoly in browser. (Try searching for an email on Firefox Microsoft Web Mail that is 4 weeks old. You can only do it by manual exhaustive binary search. Brain dead!)

Fortunately they have lost that browser war judging by the raw Wikimedia numbers (not fudged by consultants paid by Microsoft), and they (Microsoft) have also lost the search war and fortunately they have lost the phone war.

So I have no sympathy for Microsoft -- they Locked down their standards essential versions of software (Word and Excel) to try and coerce the user to purchase Windows and Word and Excel. If your going to exchange a document for business, you cannot afford not to purchase Word or Excel, because who knows what the other side will see when they open it up.

A pox on Microsoft's house and any one stupid enough to use Windows phone is supporting their monopoly tie-in practices. To the people who wasted their dollars on Windows phone, I suggest breaking contract or turning it back in as defective by design.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Master of the Two Edged Sword
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 02:04 AM EST
Behind Google's Antitrust Escape/WSJ
[Google] said it would allow rivals to opt out of having their content appear on some Google websites.
Seems like some will never learn to be careful what they ask for.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )