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
Typos in the RIM transcription | 235 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Typos in the RIM transcription
Authored by: achurch on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 02:56 AM EST

(These are all checked against the PDF. Many thanks for doing this part of it as text, because the poor focus on the scan makes my eyes hurt.)

Paragraph 1: License → license

FRAND requires a firm to offer a License on reasonable terms.

Paragraph 2, near the beginning: extraneous space before footnote reference

invoking non-FRAND encumbered implementation patents. 15

Paragraph 2, about 2/3 through: questiou → question

In either case, competition in the product market covered by the patents in questiou will suffer.

Paragraph 2, next sentence: implementatjon → implementation

If, however, the SEP holder is allowed defensively to seek an injunction, it can force the implementatjon patent holder to the bargaining table

Paragraph 3, sentences 2-4: oftreating → of treating, opportunisticaJiy → opportunistically, de{i:msively → defensively, bold-up → hold-up, jf → if, poUcy → policy, m → in

Instead oftreating labels such as FRAND as a substitute for analysis, the ITC (as well as competition agencies and federal courts) should focus on the fact-specific context of the bargaining relationship between the parties. In evaluating the facts, the ITC should ask whether the SEP holder is seeking opportunisticaJiy to evade its FRAND commitment, or, rather, is de{i:msively using its patent to preclude opportunistic bold-up by the other negotiating party. In other words, jf (as RIM believes) the overarcbing poUcy goal of FRAND is viewed as the avoidance of hold-up and the promotion of standards-based competition, there are circumstances m which a defensive injunctive threat by an SEP holder is procompetitive (and thus in compliance with a FRAND undertaking)

End of paragraph 4: The "Conclusion" section title is attached to the end of the paragraph instead of being on its own line.

In sum, a "no injunctions" rule subject to no exceptions would undercut the consumer welfare and competition goals ... Conclusion

Also, footnote 16 at the bottom doesn't seem to be referenced in the quoted text and could probably be deleted.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

this would in turn cause finns to invest less in standard setting. finns -> firms
Authored by: AMackenzie on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 05:04 AM EST
We're surely not talking about Nokia here. :-)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Destabalize -> Destabilize
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 02:57 PM EST
Destabalize -> Destabilize

[ 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 )