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
More than that, Apple sued Motorola over other patents...then Motorola started enforcing... | 156 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Waahhh they're trying to NEGOTIATE!
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 12:07 PM EDT
Or at least, Motorola were.

The rate *offered* to Apple was very much non-discriminatory, as it was the
standard opening bid offered to EVERYONE.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What exactly should happen to a company that refuses to pay and won't accept ....?
Authored by: AMackenzie on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 12:14 PM EDT
One would, indeed, expect Apple to appeal as long as possible. But if I
understand correctly, Motorola didn't "present" a higher rate (i.e.
take-it-or-leave-it) to Apple but proposed that rate as the opening round of
negotiation. Apple then declined to negotiate a RAND rate but instead just
ignored the existence of the patent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

More than that, Apple sued Motorola over other patents...then Motorola started enforcing...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 03:20 PM EDT
There's very much a quid-pro-quo here...Apple extended their intransigence by
sueing Motorola, rather than engaging in a good-faith negotiation...

Good-faith negotiatins don't sit for three years, and end up in court. An
important corollary of "most important things are not zero-sum games"
is that court games often involve a loss for all parties except the lawyers.
Motorola's cite of the first license going for half of the portfolio rate
indicates that even the negotiations are expensive.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

anons keep making this claim
Authored by: sumzero on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 05:41 AM EDT
but don't back it up with any evidence. whereas motorola has provided evidence
that
this is the standard opening rate for everyone and, further, that other
companies
have paid rates in this range.

it has also been pretty clearly established that apple has refused to negotiate
and
refused to accept a rate set by the court unless it lines up with what they
want. all
this while infringing the patents for six years now.

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 | Parent | # ]

What exactly should happen to a company that refuses to pay and won't accept ....?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 06:52 AM EDT
No, Motorola offered the exact same starting offer they
offer everyone. Everyone except Apple & Microsoft
understands that in negotiations, the seller starts high and
comes down, the buyer starts low and comes up. Normally the
next step would have been Apple's counter offer. However,
like Microsoft, rather than engaging in negotiations, Apple
decided to go straight to court.

IMHO, and IANAL, the first thing the judge in both cases
should have done is thrown it out, and told them not to come
back until they (both sides) could prove they had seriously
tried to negotiate and failed.

[ 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 )