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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Newspicks Here | 244 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: SteveRose on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 04:06 AM EDT
Please list the mistake in the title, e.g. "errror" ->
"error".

---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic thread
Authored by: SteveRose on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 04:08 AM EDT
Off topic posts go here (you can think up your own penalty).

---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks Here
Authored by: SteveRose on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 04:10 AM EDT
Please add your news pick here, and include a clickable link so that when it
scrolls off the page we can still go to it easily.

Remember to use HTML!

---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Thread
Authored by: SteveRose on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 04:13 AM EDT
Please post all Comes transcriptions here for PJ.

Remember to use "Plain Old Text" mode for your HTML so that she can
copy and paste it.

---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can we please...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 08:53 AM EDT
....stop referring to agreeing to license patents under
FRAND/RAND terms as DONATING them?

The patents are NOT donated. Not to anyone. Donation means
giving them up some patent rights. RAND/FRAND aren't close.

Standards bodies COULD work on donated patents. Standards
bodies could insist on a royalty-free license to all comers
for the limited purpose of using the standard. That's a
donation. But they don't, because all the patent holding
companies want their slice of the pie for their precious
patents, and the theoretically independent standards bodies
caved.

Or, they could work on a model where the patent holder
grants a license with sublicense authority to the standard
body, who in turn is empowered to issue licenses to all
comers who want to implement the standard at published
rates, collects royalties and remits an agreed portion to
the donor (i.e. the standards bodies would "own" the patents
for purposes of the standards). They don't. Because the
companies who own the patents favor deals cut in secret over
openness, and again the standards bodies don't object.

A patent holder who agrees to RAND/FRAND doesn't "dontate"
the patent anywhere. They maintain exclusive ownership.
They maintain the right to effectively refuse (by setting an
exorbitant rate). They maintain the right to set rates in
secret based on secret negotiation with parties.

They ONLY thing they agree to do is "offer" what IN THEIR
ESTIMATION is a "reasonable" rate to all comers. Doesn't
have to be the same rate (which is why the "ND" is utterly
laughable). Doesn't have to actually BE reasonable
(standards bodies don't define or appear to have any
interest in opining on this).

That's not donation. That's patent-encumbering a standard,
and being able to hold a gun to the head of every potential
implementor of the standard (you wanna talk issues for FOSS
created by patents, well, that's it in a nutshell).

People with RAND/FRAND patents aren't the good guys.
They're not the white knights. They're not noble selfless
"donors" of their patents to the greater good. They're the
ones with the legal toll gates on the road that ought to be
free. It's better than gangs of thieves on the same road,
but hardly someone to be thanked.

You want to talk "donating" a patent? Talk about granting a
royalty-free license. Or assigning the patent to an open
source defense league. THAT'S donation.

Motorola's not the good guy. They're the slightly less bad
guy. And the fact that Apple's behavior is all black hat
evil doesn't change the fact that Motorola's position here
really IS unreasonable. Really, they want 2.5% of iPhone
sales (~$25 per unit) for a minor patent on a small portion
of the 3G protocol? That's reasonable? Really? I in no
way condone Apple's behavior, but that's not a reason to
endorse Motorola's.

Sorry, but I am so friggin' sick of the partisanship here.
Everything winds up good guy/bad guy. Hey, remember when
Novell could do no wrong and SCO was evil? That was right
up until the Attachmate deal. These are CORPORATIONS.
They're all evil, especially if the law is on their side.

Reserve the "good guy" words like "donating" to the people
who deserve it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Change of venue
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 09:12 AM EDT
Is there such a thing as changing venue in a civil case, as there is in criminal
cases?

[ Reply to This | # ]

a sad state of affairs
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 11:47 AM EDT
"For sure, a jury trial is Motorola's best hope for a more even playing field, but since it'll be in Seattle, who knows? After the Apple lynching of Samsung in Apple's backyard courtroom by that tilted jury, my faith in juries living and working in the shadow of a large corporation has been somewhat strained. But for sure a jury there is better than a judge in Microsoft's shadow."

It's a sad system we have in place when we would prefer the former to the latter, especially considering the latter could/should lose their job for showing favoritism (but when does that every happen)

---
IANAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft v. Motorola, Part 2, Will Be a Jury Trial, Aug. 26 ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 05:16 PM EDT
Wikipedia says peers are
"People who are equal in such respects as age, education or social class
etc"

which is mostly what it means yoday in the uk.

and the next definition talks about members of the peerage.

[ 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 )