|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 23 2013 @ 10:48 PM EST |
Muah hah hah hah - poor downtrodden Microsoft, getting the case yanked from it's
pet court...
Too bad, so sad for them, but the best thing that could happen here for everyone
else in the world.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Saturday, February 23 2013 @ 11:44 PM EST |
Please post corrections in this thread.
A summary of the correction in the title may be helpful
Please check against PDF originals before offering any
correction to transcriptions from them.
Also note, that the main starter threads are NOT to
be started by anonymous posters, as some readers
block anonymous posts, and they will never see that
thread.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 02:44 AM EST |
Ya think!!!
Anti-Heaven, yes!
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 03:09 AM EST |
Laugh at Microsoft getting hoisted by their own petard here.
I'll start:
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA, oh Microsoft never saw that coming. Couldn't happen to
a more deserving company.
Moto figures that this is a great way to get this somewhat out of Robart's
hands. I'd love to see Microsoft try to convince him to rewrite German law. They
still have more footguns ready to use after the footzooka they used in this
article.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 03:54 AM EST |
I've never understood how Judge Robart could set a worldwide
royalty
Let me ask you some simple questions to help
you:
- How many non american teams play in the world series
[baseball]?
- How many non american teams play in the NFL to become
world champions?
- Why was the "Guiness book of records" renamed the
"Guiness book of world records"?
From this side of the pond to the
USA "world" means USA, so there is no problem in setting a worldwide rate as the
world = USA. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Zyphyr on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 06:43 AM EST
- It all figures! - Authored by: BJ on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 09:00 AM EST
- The old joke... - Authored by: Nick_UK on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 10:14 AM EST
- The old joke... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 10:29 AM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 11:12 AM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 06:14 PM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: rcsteiner on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 06:39 PM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 06:53 PM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 05:16 AM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: rcsteiner on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 04:20 PM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 04:28 AM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 11:02 PM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 11:58 AM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 06:33 PM EST
- world series? - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 11:29 AM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 02:55 PM EST
- L & P n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 03:47 PM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 12:32 AM EST
- Three tailors - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 11:23 AM EST
- The International Baseball Board - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 05:41 AM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 11:00 AM EST
- Worldwide? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 04:18 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 05:05 AM EST |
Please stay off topic in these threads. Use HTML Formatted mode to make your
links nice and clickable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 05:07 AM EST |
Please type the title of the News Picks article in the Title box of your
comment, and include the link to the article in HTML Formatted mode for the
convenience of the readers after the article has scrolled off the News Picks
sidebar.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 05:08 AM EST |
| Please post your transcriptions of Comes exhibits here with full HTML markup but
posted in Plain Old Text mode so PJ can copy and paste it
See the Comes
Tracking Page to find and claim PDF files that still need to be
transcribed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tredman on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 05:22 AM EST |
I love the little stab from Motorola, that very subtly challenges the
authority that Judge Robarts' court has in the first
place:
Motorola and GI wish to bring these documents to the
Court's attention to keep the Court fully apprised of ongoing proceedings in
other jurisdictions concerning H.264 patents. (emphasis
mine) ---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 06:11 AM EST |
|
They made an offer in bad faith, and Motorola had the gall too accept
it.
I've been involved in negotiations in the past. Not for anything
this big, and
never any that went this wrong luckily, but everything you
say can
and will be held against
you.
Waynehttp://madhatter.ca [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 06:22 AM EST |
| Such fun! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 06:55 AM EST |
Forcing
Moves
An important principle in chess is the concept of the
“forcing move”. A forcing move is one which requires the
opponent to reply in
a certain way, or which greatly limits
the ways in which he can respond.
Essentially, a forcing
move is either a check, a capture, or a threat. In the
case
of a check, it is the rules which force the opponent to
respond – he must
get out of check. Capturing moves and
threats are also usually forcing, because
while the opponent
may legally be allowed to make any move, most of the moves
will be bad. ---
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 | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 07:02 AM EST |
Buahahaha! Bwuhuhuhaha!!!
Oh man what a giggle.
Obviously MS will have a different view :-P
---
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 | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 07:18 AM EST |
Love this bit:
3.10 reads: "Freedom to negotiate a new royalty
rate. The
parties are free at any time to negotiate a new royalty rate,
or
have a new royalty rate determined by a Court of Law,
arbitral tribunal, an
antitrust authority or independent
third-party charged with giving a binding
opinion."
Wow!---
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 | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 11:18 AM EST |
Let me see if I get this straight.
Microsoft complained to the US court that Motorola violated its
FRAND commitment in its opening offer. Microsoft then made
an offer which Motorola has now accepted and it's complaining
to the same court that Microsoft's offer was not FRAND. Does
that mean that Microsoft gets to pay the same damages for
violating the contact like it's arguing that Motorola's got to
pay?
Maybe the court will decide the royalty rate is to low since both
Motorola and Microsoft say that this license agreement is not
FRAND.
Obviously will wait and watch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Good move - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 05:51 AM EST
- Good move - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 08:28 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 11:53 AM EST |
Reminds me of the old comedy routing of pulling the rug out
from underneath someone. Nice to see M$ land on their bum.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 02:57 PM EST |
I've never understood how Judge Robart could set a worldwide royalty
for Motorola's FRAND patents. It strikes me as American hubris, to assume to set
a price for a royalty for all situations in all the countries in the world,
particularly for a judge who has never done it before.
So is
Judge Robart therefore claiming that courts in other countries also have
jurisdiction in the USA? Will other countries interpret his claim as submitting
American courts to the jurisdiction of other countries?
This opens up
the fascinating possibility of world-wide jurisdiction shopping. If you don't
like someone's patent terms, find a country that sets low patent rates, and
start a lawsuit there claiming the results apply world-wide. I think we would
find that Judge Robart would suddenly jump on his reverso-cycle and claim that
"world-wide jurisdiction" only flows one way. This begins to sound like the next
edition of "America - World Police".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 04:01 PM EST |
Says PJ "When Motorola donated its patents under FRAND terms
originally....."
There's no "donation" with FRAND. That's the problem with
FRAND. The patent holder maintains the patent, which means
the standard is patent encumbered.
All agreeing to FRAND means is that that the patent holder
agrees to attempt negotiations with anyone who requests a
license to those patents. The patent holder is free to
determine what THEY consider "fair and reasonable," and
(given there's a different negotiation with each licensee)
what "non-discriminatory" means.
FRAND suck. People agreeing to make patents available under
FRAND terms aren't the good guys. They're the guys who want
patent-encumbered standards. They're the ones who got us
into this mess in the first place. FRAND is not in ANY WAY
a "donation."
Motorola is way less evil than Microsoft in this
negotiation, but don't for a minute start believing a
company holding standards-essential allegedly-FRAND patents,
and who demonstrable is willing to use them in litigation,
is "the good guy." They're the "less bad" guy. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Donated? LMAO - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 05:32 PM EST
- Donated? LMAO - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 06:43 PM EST
- Donated? LMAO - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 06:43 PM EST
- Donated? LMAO - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 12:15 AM EST
- Donated? LMAO - Authored by: ukjaybrat on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 11:14 AM EST
- Donated? LMAO - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 01:22 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 24 2013 @ 11:49 PM EST |
Section 8.1 and 8.2 say German law governs the agreement and the
Mannheim District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes about the
agreement. Microsoft's own words coming back to haunt them. Why
bother with a US appeal and the months, if not years, that will take when now
you can simply yank Microsoft back to Mannheim. And once back in Mannheim,
Motorola can take advantage of:
Freedom to negotiate a new royalty
rate. The parties are free at any time to negotiate a new royalty rate, or have
a new royalty rate determined by a Court of Law, arbitral tribunal, an antitrust
authority or independent third-party charged with giving a binding
opinion. Blown out of the water! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Here is the rub. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 05:37 AM EST
|
