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
Microsoft and standards | 130 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Ask yourself Why do Patents Exist
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:22 AM EST

And then read the above, and see if it matches your expectation.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple - You better wake up!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 06:21 AM EST

I love 3:

3. refuses to enter a License Agreement covering the FRAND Patent on terms that have been set in the Final Ruling of a Court or through Binding Arbitration; or
Isn't that exactly what Apple told the Court if the Court set a rate higher then $1 per Unit? The Act which got Apple's case booted from Court?

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: SteveRose on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:02 AM EST
It's useful to indicate the error in the title, e.g. speeling -> spelling

Steve


---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic thread
Authored by: SteveRose on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:04 AM EST
...

---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Thread Here
Authored by: SteveRose on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:06 AM EST
Please include a link to the article for easy access after it scrolls off the
main page.

---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Thread Here
Authored by: SteveRose on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:08 AM EST
...

---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SEP injunction ruling: Google now have a good argument that 6 months is an appropriate delay.
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 08:20 AM 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 | # ]

Microsoft and standards
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:16 AM EST
Microsoft always prefer their own de-facto, locked down standards and a policy
that undermines or destroys real standards is exactly what they want.

Damage to public standard setting is not a side effect here, it may even be the
dominant intention over the obvious attempt at hobbling Google or shaving
pennies off their licence fees.

I think MS have forgotten how much trouble they get into going alone though,
since they seem incapable of avoiding other peoples IP when creating their own
'standards'. VC1 being the best known example, where they make nothing because
other people own most of the IP in it. Something only discovered after MS made
their misguided attempt to make VC1 a standard they could milk.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Motorola Tells Its FRAND Story to the Court in Seattle ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:20 AM EST
This article is way off, moto wanted 2.25% of the final product, that is not
FRAND in any way, if every company wanted a percent of the final product then we
wouldn't be able to afford anything. This is a article with bias and lacks
common sense. Nobody in there right mind would give that percentage of the final
product...hence why the major android oems (Samsung/google) are are still under
investigation by multiple jurisdictions around the world...and I can bet the EU
wont go as soft as the FTC.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Licence installers
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 12:56 PM EST
rate of 2.25% of the price per unit
At the moment companies and subsidiaries assemble boards or parts of boards. Often this is done for tax purposes so the profitable "step" in he assembly occurs in the lowest tax jurisdiction, but also to use up excess capacity like SONY building Raspberry Pi, and Samsung building iphones. Could this approach also be used to reduce payouts for FRAND patents? A subsidiary instals the license to the boards at a very low cost then sells them back to the parent?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Motorola Tells Its FRAND Story to the Court in Seattle ~pj Updated
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:58 PM EST

(PJ:) I'd do Microsoft's too, but it's a 43-page tiff, and I can't do such a long document by hand.

PJ, I'm doing an OCR of that brief, will send it shortly.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )