|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 04:51 PM EST |
I agree with you on the readability of this stuff...
What I see is -if- the Motorola affiliate is more than 50% controlled
by Google, then the amount paid by Google for licenses it has taken
for other parties patents does not change just because Motorola
uses more patents, provided Google has notified MPEG-LA in
writing that Moto is now under Google's control. What happens if
Google fails to so notify is a contractual matter between Google
and MPEG-LA.
What happens to Motorola's patents that another party has licensed
now that Moto is controlled by Google, I don't see. It would depend on
the class of license the other party had taken, you'd have to
ask a lawyer, maybe go to court...
Then if another party held out on taking a license for Motorola's
patents, knowing they were to be bought and controlled by Google,
and thus come under the other party's existing license for
Google's patents, nah, they wouldn't do that, would they, huh?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 04:56 PM EST |
Google gave Microsoft a license
Microsoft did
not license Motorolas patents
MS infringed Motorolas
patents
Motorola attempted to enter negotiations with MS
MS
initiated a Lawsuit against Motorola
Then Google bought
Motorola
That raises another interesting question relative to
Google's selected license which Microsoft benefits from:
Is it by default
retroactive to cover any infringing activities upon the purchase of an
affiliate?
Somehow I'd be surprised if it did. So even if the license did
automatically (which doesn't sound right since the affiliate has to be listed)
cover an affiliate upon acquisition date - there's still all that historical
infringement to deal with.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, January 29 2013 @ 06:07 PM EST |
I think it went like this:
- Google granted a license to it's patents
to Microsoft.
- Microsoft asked Motorola for a license to it's
patents.
- Motorola responded with it's standard opening offer, and
expected Microsoft to make a counter-offer like you do in a
negotiation.
- Google bought Motorola.
- Microsoft turned to the
courts, arguing that Google was obliged to give Microsoft a license to
Motorola's patents, on whatever terms Microsoft wanted to
offer.
Microsoft's problem should be two-fold. First, that FRAND
doesn't mean the licensor agrees to grant a license. Under FRAND they only
commit to negotiating a license, and then only for fair and reasonable terms.
The grant isn't automatic, and the licensor isn't required to accept terms that
are unreasonably low just as the licensee isn't required to accept terms that
are unreasonably high. Second, regardless of FRAND, the MPEG LA agreement allows
Google to specify which affiliated companies are part of the agreement with the
rest being excluded. Any excluded affiliates aren't entitled to use patents from
the MPEG LA pool under Google's license, and conversely they aren't obliged to
license their patents to others under the MPEG LA. Motorola is not on the
list of Google affiliates on file as part of Google's MPEG LA
agreement.
At this point the only questions on the judge's plate ought by
rights to be a) was Motorola's initial offer reasonable and fair, and b) did
Microsoft proceed to negotiate? It'd be hard to argue that Moto's initial offer
was unfair or unreasonable, seeing as it's the standard initial offer Moto's
made to every company that's wanted licenses and so far Microsoft is the only
company that's had heartburn over that initial offer. Being the same offer as
everybody else got seems eminently fair, and with so many accepting it as
reasonable I'd think it hard to claim it wasn't. And it'd be hard to argue that
Microsoft negotiated when even MS admits they didn't respond to Moto's initial
offer with any counter-offer.
This ought to be a slam-dunk: dismissed
without prejudice, parties have 90 days to negotitate and if they can't come to
terms within that time they may file suit asking for any relief they're legally
entitled to. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
