|
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 03:22 PM EST |
Well, if the Judge sees through MS, and asks himself "why did they come to
court instead of negotiating", it *could* happen.
It would be absolutely wonderful if the Judge does decide that MS didn't want to
negotiate, and twisted their arm that way :-)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: argee on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 03:28 PM EST |
Way I understand it (can anyone understand *this* stuff?)
is that Google gave Microsoft a license.
Then Google bought Motorola.
Motorola never gave a license to Microsoft.
Now, Microsoft argues that the Google license includes
Motorola's patents, and Google argues that it does not.
I hate to sound like a shill/troll, but if I have this right, I think this issue
has to be solved first, before
any money talks. If my interpretation is right, I am
on Microsoft's side on this; ie, finding out if the
Google license covers Motorola.
As lawyers have to defend against any possible outcomes,
they will litigate things like injunctions, FRAND terms,
2.25%, and M$ patent validity and the "no way, Jose"
attitude.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|