|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|