|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, March 05 2013 @ 11:18 PM EST |
como arriva. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Tuesday, March 05 2013 @ 11:53 PM EST |
For the discussion of matters not related to the main article. Please include
clickable URLs where appropriate.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- HP sells a PC preloaded with Ubuntu in the UK! - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 05:40 AM EST
- Decade Anniversary - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 06:19 AM EST
- An oldie but goodie... - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 08:04 AM EST
- Murdoch group unveils Amplify tablet for US schools - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 01:21 PM EST
- from April 2007 - Cracking the Credit Market Code - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 02:53 PM EST
- Google not sharing code Android code? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:16 PM EST
- Having to recompile the Linux kernel? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:20 PM EST
- Patents in Mathematics - Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 04:39 PM EST
- New Help Desk Comic - About SCO! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 05:03 PM EST
- Alwaleed bin Talal kicks Forbes' shins - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 05:38 PM EST
- Off-topic Discussions - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 09:15 PM EST
- trademark dilution - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 10:38 PM EST
- Somewhat evil Chrome - Authored by: skyisland on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 10:55 PM EST
- A remembrance of Aaron Swartz Tuesday, March 12, 2013 | 4:00pm - 6:00pm Location: MIT Media Lab - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 03:31 AM EST
- Leaked financial network map illustrates grim newspaper future - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 06:52 AM EST
- Court says Kim Dotcom can sue New Zealand spy agency - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 10:51 AM EST
- Microsoft about-face: Office 2013 license IS transferable now - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 11:05 AM EST
- Microsoft in about-turn on restrictive Office licensing terms - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 11:11 AM EST
- Ubuntu: Not convinced by rolling releases - Mark Shuttleworth - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 02:14 PM EST
|
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Tuesday, March 05 2013 @ 11:54 PM EST |
Discussion about items in the news picks on the home page.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft has been fined 561 million euros - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 06:59 AM EST
- Not enough! - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 07:42 AM EST
- Not enough! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:06 PM EST
- Just right! - Authored by: albert on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST
- Just right! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 03:57 AM EST
- It must be a typo ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 07:56 AM EST
- Pocket change for MS, so why so little? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 08:01 AM EST
- Adequate - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 10:23 AM EST
- Microsoft has been fined 561 million euros - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 12:37 PM EST
- Open Letter To: European Anti-Competition Commission - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:14 PM EST
- Tougher Danish Tax Authorities - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 10:53 AM EST
- The White House Supports the Right to Unlock Your Cellphone—but That's Just the Start - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 02:49 PM EST
- The Holder News Picks: Prosecutorial Discretion and Aaron Swartz - Authored by: webster on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 10:08 PM EST
- Nokia joins Apple to secure injunction against Samsung - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 10:47 AM EST
- TechCrunch: Microsoft's Patent Lawsuit Against Google Could Shut Down Google Maps In Germany - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 03:42 PM EST
|
Authored by: vadim on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 03:00 AM EST |
But if one assumes that patents are BAD and should be abolished,
than maybe the FTC decision is step in good direction?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 04:23 AM EST |
I have so far only scanned these lengthy briefs. Nevertheless the question
on my mind was addressed on pages 10 to 12 of the Washington Legal Foundation
Brief:
Of course, the fact that Motorola and Google have a
constitutional right to seek injunctive relief says nothing about whether they
are entitled to obtain such relief. The Supreme Court has made clear that
injunctive relief is never granted as a matter of course to prevailing
plaintiffs in patent infringement litigation. Instead, the Court has held that
normal rules of equity practice apply “with equal force” to patent infringement
lawsuits and that the prevailing plaintiffs in such suits must satisfy the
rigorous “four-factor test before a court may grant [injunctive] relief.” eBay
Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The facts underlying the
patent infringement litigation filed by Motorola – in particular, its agreement
to license its SEPs on FRAND terms – might well cause a court to conclude that
Motorola could not meet the four- factor test and thus is not entitled to
injunctive relief. After all, a company that makes a FRAND commitment might well
have difficulty demonstrating that an award of damages (in the form of a
retroactive licensing fee) could not adequately compensate it for its injuries
(one of the showings required under the four-factor test). But a finding that
Motorola and Google are not entitled to injunctive relief is a far cry from a
finding that they have waived their constitutional rights to petition the courts
for such relief.
My understanding (correct or not) is that
Equity is a body of law that developed in medieval England and was further
developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. Those who believed that outcomes
determined at common law were unjust, or who believed that remedies obtainable
at common law were insufficient to remedy injustices, could petition the
Monarch, and the matter would be considered by the Court of Chancery, presided
over by the Lord Chancellor, and equitable relief could be accorded on a
case-by-case basis. An injunction is a form of equitable relief, as are
estoppel and specific performance. But, as I understand it,
entitlement to equitable relief should not be precluded by categorical
requirements (e.g., "holders of FRAND patents are not entitled to
injunctions", or "courts will issue permanent injunctions against
patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances"). And entitlement to
any form of equitable relief should be determined on a case-by-case basis in
accordance with the principles of Equity, as described in the Maxims of Equity.
This, as I understand the matter, is the basis on which the Supreme Court
determined eBay
v. MercExchange. It therefore seems odd that an executive body could
consider that it could declare or enforce a categorical ruling that holders of
FRAND patents are, for that reason alone absent special circumstances, not
entitled to petition the courts for any form of equitable relief. Determining
entitlement to equitable relief is surely the prerogative of courts
"sitting in Equity".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 06:34 AM EST |
EU fines
Microsoft over $730 million for failing to
include browser
ballot in Windows 7 SP1 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 08:01 AM EST |
After reading the paragraph about the FTC statuatory authority
I had to ask myself why hasn't the FTC thrown M$ into the
dumpster yet? As far as I can tell all of M$ business
behaviours have fallen to those categories that the FTC
should be cracking down on.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 08:44 AM EST |
GI want a "Donate with BTC" button on Groklaw. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 06 2013 @ 01:34 PM EST |
Google has smashed the Apple and Microsoft duopoly
and
this has open a can
of worms..... And that's why Apple and
Microsoft is fighting to maintained the
status quo, which is
causing this massive blow back [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 10:31 AM EST |
The term "property" should not be applied to patents because
it is a bad analogy. While I agree that patents,
copyrights, and trademarks should not be lumped together
because they are very different concepts, that is not the
main problem with the term "intellectual property" - the
main problem is that "property" is a bad term for any of
these things. They are all essentially negative in
character in that they only allow their owners to restrict
the actions of others. They don't in themselves provide
anything positive.
So when the discussion the current topic gets framed as an
issue of "property rights", it makes it seem like the patent
holders are having a possession unfairly taken from them,
which I don't think is valid. The real measure (which is
not achieved by this ruling) ought to be a declaration that
"standards-essential patents" are intrinsically unfair and
cannot exist. I don't care whether Google or Microsoft is
the patent holder, the point is that patents cannot be a
mandatory part of any legitimately open standard.
This is somewhat like the debate over ending slavery in the
United States. It was claimed that slaves could not be
freed because that would be a violation of the
constitutionally-guaranteed property rights of the
slaveholders, who after all had invested great amounts of
money in this "property".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|