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
Whose burden? | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Its still Microsoft's burden.
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 08:21 AM EDT
Microsoft asked for the rate to be set by the court, not
Motorola. Microsoft therefore has the burden of proving what
it should be as I understand it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Whose burden? Who refused to Negotiatie?
Authored by: lnuss on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 08:35 AM EDT
Keep in mind that Microsoft bears a burden that they caused by refusing to
negotiate at all. Had this litigation come after good faith negotiation
attempts, then there'd be more point to it, but as it is it looks as if MS is
just wanting to tilt the playing field heavily in their favor.

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Microsoft failed to uphold its burden
Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 09:35 AM EDT
Microsoft had a burden of negotiating in good faith as part of following the
RAND process. They basically ran crying to Mommy that mean, old Motorola was
being a bully by following well-established global procedures. Motorola was
being a jerk by treating Microsoft fairly.

Microsoft is getting to be more and more like Apple every day.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The court should not be setting the rate at all
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 02:40 PM EDT
Microsoft is acting as if they have an _entitlement_ to be
in the mobile phone market.

They don't.

They have the rights to pay Motorola's original asking
price, to negotiate a lower price and pay it, work around
the patents, or stay out of the mobile market.

Microsoft should stick to what it does best, which is ...
sorry, kind of lost my train of thought there.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Whose burden?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 04:30 PM EDT
First off I'm not a lawyer but here my
understanding.

Microsoft is the plaintiff and Motorola is
the defendant. My understanding is that
the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
In the areas where they fail or the
defendant raises sufficient doubt, then
the defendant" wins" and the court has to
rule in the defendant's favor in those
areas.

Now the sufficient doubt is at different
levels depending on what type of case it
is.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Whose burden?
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 07:17 PM EDT
It's a legal thing. Microsoft is the only
one asking for a rate. Motorola's position was
that the judge had no authority to do this.

So that makes Microsoft the plaintiff on
this issue, and the plaintiff always has
the burden of proof.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )