|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 18 2013 @ 06:54 PM EDT |
So much of this ends up chalked up to one side or the other
of the Apple vs. Android conflict. Apple is abusing patents
to attack Android, no doubt. But if Motorola retaliates by
abusing patents against Apple, it remains abuse. We
groklawyers are all just outsiders anyway. If we want to
weigh in on these matters, it is more fitting to weigh in
against all anticompetitive patent suits, not to express
hope for a balance of power.
Also, the argument that companies will pay less than is fair
unless the threat of injunction is present leaves a bit to
be desired. It may be true, but that by no means proves
that the threat of injunction is any more fair. Patent
trolls use threats of expensive legal battles to extort
royalties for worthless patents ("cost of defense"
settlement). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 08:49 AM EDT |
If i understand right, 'the case' here is the following:
- Motorola is obliged to license 'at a reasonable fee' its
SEP patents, subject to reasonable negotiation.
- Apple 'uses' -since 2007- the patents without license.
- Motorola offers in 2007 to negotiate a license fees for the
patents
- Apple says <unprintable>
- Judge says to Motorola: no injunction, because if -at any
time- Apple does pay up, you've suffered no unrepairable
harm: you get your fees, delayed, but you get them.
- But: so far Apple simply refuses to take a license, with
nothing really forcing Apple to do so at all: the 'big
hammer' of the injunction is taken from Motorola's hands, so
what is there left for Motorola to induce Apple to start
sensible license negotiations at all.
- Motorola appeals, complaining that without its 'big hammer'
there is no final means to get Apple to negotiate sensibly
about how much it has to pay up.
- In the article, there is -from this issue's perspective-
some 'background noise' about other patents, from both
Motorola and Apple.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
