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
Naive Wish | 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 @ 09:47 AM EDT
<blockquote>I feel confident that this will be appealed by Motorola,
because the
judge in effect sets the "rule" that you can be ordered to accept pool
rates in
pools you haven't joined instead of following the normal negotiation structure
of
the standard body you did agree to put your standard essential patents in.
</blockquote>

1. The decision to set a RAND rate has already been appealed and upheld.

2. He didn't set the pool rate — he said the pool rates were closer to a
comparable and acceptable rate (and were largely compliant with the George
Pacific factors) and applied Motorola's method of rate setting — ex-parte,
bilateral negotiation.

3. The standard bodies are afraid to set rates on antitrust concerns so there is
a
complete and utter lack of guidance from the standards bodies on proper rates.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 09:59 AM EDT
You make a clear assertion that you don't believe that
companies would offer patents to a standards body given the
terms asserted in this case. I respectfully disagree with
this assessment.

I think that it is worth noting that companies don't make
patents available to standards bodies solely in order to
make money from licensing (they do have to be offered at
FRAND rates after all, even if not the rates from this
ruling). Companies give patents to standards bodies for a
number of other reasons, for example:

* to prevent other companies controlling the content of a
standard

* to base a standard around a technology that they already
have developed and are experienced with thus giving them an
early advantage in product development

* because the existence of standards depends on patents, and
in a lot of cases a standard is a pre-requisite for
expanding a market (think 802.11, standards gave consumers
confidence and the market then expanded quickly).

Such a ruling might give some companies pause before
offering patents in some circumstances, but often, in the
tech industry, once a good standard exists this standard
rules and companies prefer their technologies to form the
basis of this standard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 10:04 AM EDT
Please mention the error in the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 10:05 AM EDT
For all posts that are not on topic. Please make links
clickable by using html.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 10:05 AM EDT
Quoting:

And that just can't be right. Who'd donate patents to standards bodies if
they know it has no bearing on the royalties they can expect in return?

One answer may be that in an area where many folks have essential
patents, going with the pool means the key people don't waste resources
suing each other, i.e., it reduces risk for products that do advance the
technology, since so very little is absolutely new.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Please Disregard - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 10:10 AM EDT
Newspicks
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 10:07 AM EDT
Please mention the name of the news story in the top post. A
link back to the story is also helpful to others because the
story will eventually fall off the Home page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 10:12 AM EDT
Please place all transcriptions of Comes exhibits here for
PJ. Please paste the html in Plain Old Text mode so it can be
easily copied.

[ Reply to This | # ]

207 pages.... ah ha
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 01:49 PM EDT
OK seriously wonky.

Everyone will be going hmmm....


#_#

This judge has just put himself square in the spotlight.



---
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 | # ]

Troll City today
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 02:08 PM EDT

At least that's my bet. The Microsoft Fanbois will be out in full force.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about the issue of a US judge overruling a German Judge
Authored by: ArtimusClyde on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 02:39 PM EDT
If this was addressed, I may have missed it. Isn't this type
of thing odd, considering the infringement was occurring on
another continent, and a German court ruled that MS was
infringing? I just feel like this whole thing has been in
Microsoft bizarro-land.

[ Reply to This | # ]

(Wishfull thinking)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 02:52 PM EDT
In other news today, a German court finds that the Seattle Judicial system
appears to be biased to a large corporation in the vicinity, overturns the
ruling, and finds the judge in contempt, ordering a long-term incarceration of
said judge, while a massive audit is performed.

Now back to reality...

[ Reply to This | # ]

PDF as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 05:41 PM EDT
PJ,

Please find the following 3 items in this shared Google drive folder:

1) OCR text recognized 206 page PDF (first page omitted)
2) Exported rich text format of that PDF
3) Exported plain text format of that PDF

They'll need some editing but hopefully this will save your wrists from some
aches and pains! :)

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxmFFvDF_li1akdRLTNVQ3plc3M&usp=shar
ing

--- Josh O.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In a First, Seattle Judge Sets RAND Rate in MS v. Motorola ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 06:25 PM EDT
"Probably because no one wants Microsoft's products. Google does make
money, though, buckets of it, because people like Google's products."

ROTFLMAO! Yeah, nobody uses or wants Microsoft's products, and they don't make
any money. They only make twice as much as Google makes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • not exactly. - Authored by: jesse on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 01:47 AM EDT
    • not exactly. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 07:32 PM EDT
Accepting the opening negotiation == paying the MSRP for a car
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 06:34 PM EDT
For the persistent anonymous person who keeps insisting that
Motorola only finding 4 people who paid the opening rate as
HARD PROOF that the judge had to step in, please answer me
this: how many people do you know who have paid the list
price for a car?

Following up on that: how many people do you know paid the
list price for a car after making a trade-in? Because that's
what a cross-licensing deal does: it takes the value of one
portfolio and subtracts out the value of the other
portfolio, and they arrive at a rate based on the valuation
of those portfolios together.

Of course given the comments our poster has made before, I'm
sure they'll insist that this is somehow fundamentally
different, or that some other reason means I'm wrong and
they're right.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Naive Wish
Authored by: hedronist on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 09:18 PM EDT
I'm really tired of reading posts by "Anonymous". Some of them support PJ's position, others attack it, but what none of them do is put their name on it!

Is there any possibility that we could do away with the tsumani of Anonymous postings? I'm not sure that they ever add anything meaningful to the conversation, but I'm absolutely certain that they are often a huge distraction from civil discourse.

I feel sure that this post itself will get attacked ... c'est la guerre.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reality kicks in at groklaw?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 11:16 PM EDT
What's with all the moaning about the judgment?

Imagine you were MS and had been participating in the standardization of
h264. You and the other companies (including motorola) make a joint
contract that the involved patents are under frand agreement. As MS you
join the mpegla pool which is running the licensing issues as most parties
did. Some chose not to do so, one of which was Motorola. Still they have
pledged to the frand commitment just as you have. So far so good. You
and others have all signed the frand contract.

Your patented input to h264 is governed by the patent pool administration.
Firms like Motorola take their licenses there. Under the frand commitment.
Now the question arises of the license you have to take from Motorola,
which you have to negotiate with Motorola separately because they didn't
join the pool. Motorola demands over 2% of sales price, you compare this
with what Motorola pays for licensing the patents you put into the pool. You
think: "WTF? Did we have a joint frand agreement or not?".

Anybody would think this unacceptable, you had a joint commitment to
frand after all. Whatever negotiations there were or not were between you
and motorola, at some point you feel you have no other choice but to sue
Motorola because of BREACH OF CONTRACT! The judge happens to
agree regarding the far too high rate demanded by Motorola (the question
of breach of contract will be judged later) and that frand is about 1/2000 of
what Motorola wanted in the first place. The judge used other frand rates
as a guideline for making a decision. What's not to like?

Or? Did the companies make a frand commitment together? Why complain
they are kept to their promises? I don't get it....

[ Reply to This | # ]

welcome to the future
Authored by: sumzero on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 12:17 PM EDT
legally-enforced lawlessness will be the new norm.

sum.zero

---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.

alan j perlis

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander
Authored by: argee on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 02:13 PM EDT
It seems to me that the next time someone wants to
stomp Google with a RAND or Essential patent, that
they (MotoGoogle) will whip out this ruling and offer
them 1.5 cents per unit as well. Fair is fair.

---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

OCR
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 05:39 PM EDT
PJ, check your inbox for a rough OCR of the doc.


---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

The method is sound...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 28 2013 @ 12:16 AM EDT
A reasonable and non-discriminatory price would be the same
price in ANY context. Be it as part of a standard, a patent
pool or private negotiation. It should all be theoretically
be the same. With perfect information and a free market for
patent licenses, fair is fair no matter how you look at it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's not a patent site, ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 28 2013 @ 03:23 AM EDT
... this is a patent site:

http://www.latestpatents.com/

It details issued patents for a large variety of biggish tech companies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stacking is a red herring
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 12:51 PM EDT
Had MS done this the way EVERYONE ELSE does it, stacking would not be a problem.
The reason is that one entity is supposed to cross-license during negotiations.
Through such negotiations, stacking becomes almost moot, as cross-licensing
tends to reduce royalty payments to reasonable levels.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )