Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj | 352 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 10:56 AM EDT

Only when you are completely and utterly unreasonable.

Again, the MPEGLA H.264 patent pool includes 100+ licensors, 1000s of patents,
and thousands of licensees.

Motorola could only provide 3 or 4 examples of companies paying their allegedly
fair rates and all were dismissed as fundamentally flawed because they were
conditioned on the settlement of preexisting patent litigation; involved the
licensing, cross-licensing, and even exchange of many other patent and IPs ,
including non-SEP patents, so there was no way to separate out the rate for the
SEPs in question -- in fact, Motorola didn't even try; sometimes actually threw
in the SEP patents for FREE in addition to another patent agreement; and/or
involved expired patents or were conducted before H.264 was a standard.

Anyone still holding onto any hope that Motorola's rates (when they could only
provide 3 or 4 FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED examples) are more fair than MPEGLA rates is
completely, utterly self-delusional.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 12:20 PM EDT
- In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 01:06 PM EDT
  - In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 02:36 PM EDT
    - In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 03:43 PM EDT
    - In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 28 2013 @ 03:57 AM EDT
In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj - Authored by: DannyB on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 04:16 PM EDT
The MPEG LA patents are not part of the H264 Standard - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 03:24 AM EDT
- The MPEG LA patents are not part of the H264 Standard - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 07:56 AM EDT
  - The Motorola patents are part of the H264 Standard. ...nt - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 11:43 AM EDT

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 )