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
What is questionable about asking for FAIR royalty | 627 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What is questionable about asking for FAIR royalty
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 02 2012 @ 08:37 AM EDT
Apple acknowledged no such thing as you well know (and are you seriously arguing
that software patents are valid?). They can't even acknowledge Samsung didn't
infringe their bogus patents under court order!

The questionable part is of course the FRAND pledge. Is it binding? What does
it mean? What happens when parties aren't reasonable? I'm not suggesting
there's any easy answers to any of that, but I don't think that the FTC
believing that requesting 2.25% of practically all PC sales is not a reasonable
offer necessarily means they've been bought out by MS or anything. I'd make the
same conclusion if I was only looking at one side here. Does that mean there's
an antitrust angle here? I don't think so no, but I can see how someone could
think that if they haven't been following what MS has been doing closely -
that's asking for a 9 figure yearly cheque. Now that's pretty much what MS
deserve but in isolation yeah, I think it's questionable.

Don't get me wrong though, I understand that MS/Apple are trying to abuse the
whole process as well.

[ 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 )