There is at least one (probably paid one) above.
That person is very
artfully avoiding the simple fact that companies are supposed to
negotiate; that the initial offer is just an opening to a negotiation; that
if the initial offer seems non-fair, you (as a company) are supposed to respond
with a counteroffer that is fair, not run to a friendly judge you may induce to
create new law.
As someone who has been in plenty of negotiations
(although no patent ones), it seems obvious that the requirement is for the end
result of the negotiations to be fair and non-discriminatory. It cannot apply to
the initial offer; without knowing what the other side brings to the table
(remember, most patent licenses involve cross-licensing, and each case is
different), you cannot make a fair offer -- unless you seriously undercut
yourself.
It seems very clear Microsoft has avoided patent pools just in
order for this kind of gaming to succeed: they want to only have to pay the pool
rates for patents they use, but extort any amount (even without revealing the
actual patents involved!) from others. No wonder Microsoft needs to pay for
trolls and astroturfers to muddle the discussion here; otherwise even an idiot
would realize and jeopardize their plan. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
