|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
On pond side of the pond, I'd think the court could do the first and the victim
the sceond. So Apple could be double whacked.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
You are forgetting the fact that if the Judge applies a rate that is
significantly higher than other RAND deals then Apple will appeal and appeal
until the rate is in line with the existing RAND deals. As I see it, the rate
presented to Apple is significantly higher than other deals.
If this is the case then to my non Legal eyes, Apple have a pretty good case.
Isn't the 'ND' in RAND meant to be Non Descriminatory?
If the patent owner decides that they don't really want to license a RAND patent
to a particular company then it seems to me that the patent owner should lose
all rights to the income on the patent.
That might stop other cases like this but somehow I doubt it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
I think the "failure to pay a rate set by a judge" hasn't
happened yet.
As I recall it, what Apple asked the judge in Wisconsin to
do was to hear evidence and issue a declaratory judgement on
what constituted a "reasonable" royalty (i.e. to have a
judge hear evidence and rule on a number that should
constitute "reasonable" in the FRAND/RAND sense) The judge
asked if Apple would commit to take a license at that number
if she issued such a ruling. Apple said no.
Which, technically, they're not required to do. RAND and
FRAND do not require each licensee to pay the same amount,
or for that amount to be publicly posted (personally, I
think both of these facts seriously undermine the claim of
"non-discriminatory", but that's me). RAND requires the
patent holder to OFFER a license with "reasonable" terms.
Apple reserved the right to try and negotiate a rate EVEN
LOWER than the rate the judge might have set as
"reasonable," or to contest the underlying patents and so
never have to pay anything.
Basically, they asked for a "heads we win, tails you don't"
ruling from the judge - Motorola would be obligated to offer
the determined "reasonable" rate (by nature of RAND), but
Apple wasn't obligated to accept it. The judge told them to
go home.
Technically, Apple never asked the judge to set a royalty
FOR APPLE. They asked the judge to determine a "reasonable"
royalty for MOTOROLA. Which isn't contempt of court. It's
just clever slimeballery.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
