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
The Microsoft v. Motorola Order on RAND, as text, plus Some Appeal Issues ~pj Updated | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: artp on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:28 AM EDT
Error in Title Block, please, if possible.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: artp on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:31 AM EDT
The judge has trouble staying on topic, but you should stay
Off Topic. Oops, that was On Topic!

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: artp on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:32 AM EDT
URL, please.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Goes Here
Authored by: artp on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:34 AM EDT
For more Microsoft lawsuit goodness!

See link above for more information: "Comes v. MS".

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Comes 5227 - Authored by: foulis on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 05:25 PM EDT
    • Comes 5227 - Authored by: PJ on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 04:56 PM EDT
Say What?!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:38 AM EDT
"And as you will see, that is the very danger that the conference
highlighted, that patent pools can impede innovation, by lowering the price for
newcomers to a field who wish to merely implement the standard, like Microsoft,
by letting them unfairly underpay those who did the research to develop the
standard, as in Motorola."

Am I reading that right? Did PJ say something "pro-patent"?

It must be end-times. I'm sure I read something about that in Revelations...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Long-term Royalty Payments on Sales of Windows
Authored by: cassini2006 on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:42 AM EDT

Microsoft usually tries to never give a royalty payment on the sale of Microsoft Windows, because of the precedent that it might set. Did Motorola just get 0.555 cents/unit (the low bound) on every copy of Windows shipped? plus the same for a whole bunch of other Microsoft products that use H.264?

That's something like 32 million dollars per year using 5.88 billion dollars per year in Windows revenue, an average selling price of $100, and 0.555 cents/unit royalty. That's a pretty good precedent for Motorola's lawyers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SISVEL - patent pool or patent troll?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 12:29 PM EDT
SISVEL are the ones behind seizures of various devices at the CeBIT and IFA
exhibitions 2006-2008 over alleged MP3 patent violations.

They also tried to shake down Openmoko because a user might install software
that would make it capable of playing MP3s.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Innovation will happen no matter the price
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 02:45 PM EDT
It is simply unproven that if the potential financial windfall
for patent licenses are not as good, innovators will go home
and stay on the couch. Where is the proof of this?

If I have a method and process for teleportation would I
really just not do it because patent license prices suck?

Besides, you want innovators to be motivated by profits they
can make for products they sell not from selling patent
licenses, intended by patent law. Where am I wrong?

[ Reply to This | # ]

On Topic Newspicks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 03:58 PM EDT
Andy Updegrove's blog post refers to "a good summary, by Jorge Contreras" with no link. I suspect he means SO THAT’S WHAT “RAND” MEANS?, on Patently-O, April 27. This is in addition to Prof. Contreras' SSRN paper Fixing FRAND: A Pseudo-Pool Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing, also a Newspick here April 27.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Breach of Contract" decided?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 04:10 PM EDT
Pardon my stupidity but if the trial is alleging a 'breach of
contract, is that not the aim of the verdict - to decide
whether or not the initial offer was in breach of Motorola's
'voluntary' contract with the ITU as SSO. The Judge should,
therefore look first at "the intent of the parties" as part
of interpreting this contract (as aside don't Microsoft also
have to play fair with this as obtaining rights as 'third
party beneficiary' and abide by the guidelines of the SSO in
terms of intention, to fulfil their responsibilities).
(As I have previously argued).

This article:
Interpreting and Enforcing the Voluntary FRAND Commitment
from The International Journal of IT Standards and
Standardization Research
gives an extremely well reasoned
set of arguments on this subject. They also address several
issues not taken into consideration in the Andy Updegrove
article referred to by pj on the main page. Similarly, this
presentation from the ITU gives a good overview of the
"intent" of the SSOs in the idea of voluntary SEP (F)RAND
commitments:
ITU Presentation on Considerations for Developing
or Revising PSO IPR Policies

To decide 'breach of contract' shouldn't the Judge reproduce
the negotiations, as if the first standard offer was to any party
- not just Microsoft - as 'Non Discriminatory' rather than
reproduce an arbitration with MS allowed to enter special
considerations of which Motorola were not made aware before
their first two offers. Cross licensing could have produced
a zero price which still does not mean the first offer was
not in "good faith".

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft v. Motorola Order on RAND, as text, plus Some Appeal Issues ~pj Updated
Authored by: eric76 on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 04:43 PM EDT
It seems to me that Microsoft could end up being a big loser on this issue.

It is indisputable that Microsoft has a great many patents. Imagine of everyone
they sought to receive royalties payments from were to have a judge set the
royalty rates far below what they would have been otherwise. If that happens,
Microsoft might as well not even have patents.

If Microsoft wants to use their patents against others, what is going to be
their argument for meaningful royalty rates?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should be $0
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 09:06 PM EDT
If we're truly lucky, on appeal the cost will be set to nothing. All standards
should be royalty free.

Arguing otherwise is just arguing for 'good patents' which is absurd in the
context of this blog.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whose burden?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 07:41 AM EDT
IANAL, but I want to explore PJ's assertion that the burden
for determining the rate is all on Microsoft.

As I understand it, RAND is a promise to negotiate a license
with all comers (the "Non-Discriminatory" aspect). In this
case, no agreement was reached.

I'd agree that Microsoft has the burden to show that a
negotiation SHOULD HAVE taken place - they need to prove
that they are entitled to a RAND license, and establish that
the court should force that license if the parties can't
negotiate to it (I don't agree that the court should have
agreed with them, but there you go...)

But once the court establishes that a licese should exist,
isn't the burden on BOTH parties to establish their case as
to what the "proper" license rate should be? Once the court
has reached the decision "there will be a license - we need
to set the rate," why is it Microsoft's burden alone to
establish what the rate should be?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Microsoft v. Motorola Order on RAND, as text, plus Some Appeal Issues ~pj Updated 3Xs
Authored by: nslm on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 07:49 AM EDT
Is it just me, or does the judge not mention the European patents at all?

Given that the Judge has already decided that since any licensing agreement
would cover the European patents too and therefore entitles him to block the
German legal rulings, surely the rate should take into account the European
patents too. His rate seems based entirely on the US patents, which aren't the
only ones at dispute in this "contract" dispute. As such, if he's
going to base the decision on good faith purely on a very low interpretation of
a negotiated rate of only SOME of the patents to be licensed he's just added a
significant bias in favour of Microsoft.

Additionally, his comments about the patents not being "essential" to
Microsoft and thus setting a low rate seem flawed since IIRC at least some of
the patents have already been ruled as violated by a judge who's jurisdiction he
does not have the authority to challenge. Already knowing you're going to win
in a court of law is unlikely to predispose you to negotiating low...

(I could be mixing up multiple trials here...)

[ 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 )