decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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



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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

OT here | 98 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Microsoft and Motorola File Trial Briefs As Seattle Trial Draws Near~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 03:20 PM EST
Since the public is greatly effected by these trade secrets and at the mercy of
the ruthless operators, I would have to say that the public has a right to know.
I find the idea of the courts getting involved in back room deals offensive.
They are protecting "trade secrets" in matters concerning patents?

Patent protection is conditional upon public disclosure of the subject matter.
If they have withheld information concerning the use of the patents then it
calls into question whether the parties involved are entitled to patent
protection in the first place on the grounds that they have not fulfilled their
own obligations to the public.

Then there are those NDA's involved in the Android settlements. Are those trade
secrets? What is the nature of those trade secrets? Are they legitimate trade
secrets such has how to make a faster smaller widget? Or are they legal secrets
like "the issues had nothing to do with Android but if you blow our FUD
ploy then you will pay"? I think the second case is more likely. These
days, legal action is a business so maybe they think that their FUD strategies
are entitled to legal protection as a "trade secrets".

The real engineers and architects have left these businesses and they are now in
the hands of extortionists. I am not against business but I don't believe that
tearing each other apart is ultimately good for business or in the public
interest. It is never a good thing when you are on a trip and daddy has to pull
the car over. These people are asking the government to pull the country over
and settle the interests of these companies by main force. Don't believe that
it can't happen. These companies control vast flows of money through their
computers and communication networks. If the government has a legitimate role
in banking then how hard is it to see them justifying their meddling. Government
won't make it better but they can sure make it worse than it is and these
companies are asking for it.

I would prefer them to settle honorably with themselves and not get the courts
involved. Why do that when they can get a "home" court to bend the
law for them? I am so discusted with all of them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

errors and corrections here please
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 03:52 PM EST
as usual, please note the correction in the title.
thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • /s if is - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 03:54 PM EST
  • s/fonn/form - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 11:18 PM EST
    • s/fonn/form - Authored by: PJ on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 05:44 AM EST
Corrections Thread (non-anonymous)
Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 04:04 PM EST
Please post corrections here.
Corrections thread should NOT be started by non-logged in folk.
A summary in the title may be helpful.

Please check against originals before offering a correction to a PDF.


[ Reply to This | # ]

If you can't compete in the market, compete in the courtroom
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 04:15 PM EST

A paraphrase of the late Con Smythe.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Find myself agreeing with Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 04:18 PM EST
If you can't set a price on a patent without
"exchanging sensitive business information" and engaging in
"extensive negotiation to account for unique circumstances
... respective market positions, industry conditions and
other commercial considerations" , and if the final price is
on a "portfolio" basis, then it's unlikely (to put it
politely) that the price is really non-discriminatory. Seems
like a terrible way to create a technology standard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft and Motorola File Trial Briefs As Seattle Trial Draws Near~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 04:20 PM EST
"Put another way, a cumulative royalty for all patents essential to a
standard that is so high that the standard cannot succeed in the market would
fail the "R" in the RAND test, as it would not be a
"reasonable" royalty."

Under this argument you could drive the price to nothing by claiming a useless
(and therefore very inexpensive due to no demand) device* that implements the
standard, then turning around later and making another device with the now-cheap
standard to make the actual product.

*This currently describes all phones running MS software, but that's neither
here nor there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes docs here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 04:40 PM EST


You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 04:41 PM EST


You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks commentary here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 04:43 PM EST


You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft and Motorola File Trial Briefs As Seattle Trial Draws Near~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 05:56 PM EST
The obvious solution is that standards bodies should require that anything contributed to a standard must be royalty-free. The UK just decided that was the way to go, and they are right.
Yes, yes, yes. A million times yes!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe, just maybe...
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 06:03 PM EST
the judge is asking himself right now what mess he has got himself into. And if
this should ever get in front of a jury, the Federal doughnuts better be plenty
and of high quality, because this maze can only lead to book-length jury
instructions. What good that does, we have already observed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One reason Microsoft sought this trial
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 07:03 PM EST

If we are to believe the self-confident, almost gleeful tone of Motorola's brief as they explain how the Court should recreate the licensing negotiation that would have taken place had Microsoft negotiated with Motorola in October 2010, one wonders if Microsoft will end up no better off than had they negotiated. However, M$FT, willing to take a chance that they won't end up worse off, feeling they have little to lose, have a lot to gain in the form of a windfall in market intelligence. Read what Kyocera has to say about the idea of providing Microsoft with their confidential licensing negotiations ...

Providing such [Microsoft] counsel access to a nonparty’s patent license exposes that nonparty’s licensing philosophy and strategy, and offers a roadmap for subsequently developing (or refining) a comprehensive license assertion strategy against that nonparty. By learning what licensing provisions (e.g., license fees, royalty rates, royalty base, cross-license provisions, etc.) the nonparty has agreed to in past license negotiations, in- house counsel gains a significant, unfair advantage in crafting license terms for subsequent assertions against the nonparty, which may severely undercut that non-party’s business competitiveness.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Were I the judge...I'd be very upset with Microsoft...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 08:54 PM EST
Clogging up my court because of their bad-faith failure to negotiate.

And I would penalize that bad faith by setting the rate at Motorola's good-
faith, if high, opening offer unless it was completely unreasonable.

But I am also with those that think that such major IP transactions should
NOT involve secret terms...and I like the UK approach...if it's in a standard,
you can't charge free software for it.. As a contributor to the standard, you
get paid back in other ways, including an expanded market for your


[ Reply to This | # ]

Great... yet another meaning for the acronym "SSO"...
Authored by: JonCB on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 11:19 PM EST
Imagine if Oracle had one. Perhaps Java could convene a
standards setting organisation(SSO) regarding appropriate
structure, sequence and organisation(SSO) of java files. This
would be of particular help in the area of "Single Sign On"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slightly off topic- Judge to review whether foreman in Apple v. Samsung hid info
Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 02:01 AM EST

Judge to review whether foreman in Apple v. Samsung hid info

From Koh's order:

On October 30, 2012, Samsung filed a motion to compel Apple to disclose the circumstances and timing of Apple's discovery of certain information regarding the jury foreperson. On November 2, 2012, Apple filed an opposition. At the December 6, 2012 hearing, the Court will consider the questions of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct. An assessment of such issues is intertwined with the question of whether and when Apple had a duty to disclose the circumstances and timing of its discovery of information about the foreperson.
Can't find a copy of the docket item generally available, likely 2124 or higher.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent Pool
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 09:02 AM EST
This is an admission that the 'price' of a patented invention licence is not based on the value of the invention. Having a 'standard' rate for all patent pools totally ignores the intrinsic value of the individual patents.

That is in direct contravention of the US Constitution which says that the inventor should be rewarded for the value of the invention because of the work and skill necessary to produce that specific invention.

By agreeing to base 'damages' on a recreation of the licensing negotiation that would have taken place had the parties actually negotiated is the court accepting that the Constitution and the intrinsic value of the patented invention count for nothing and that the commercial value is what is important.

However, this is still better than the alternative which is for the court to make a judgement on no basis at all other than the names of the companies involved. If the court do not explain in great detail the legal basis for the patent pool tithe between the parties in a court case, how can that judgement ever provide a legal foundation in a case between other parties? If there is no legal and factual foundation for a legal opinion, in what way can it be upheld?

Motorola explain to us the result if the FRAND assurances to the international standards organisations are abused in the way Apple and Microsoft want. The trade associations will withdraw their FRAND declarations with all the organisations including the ITU and the IEEE. There is no international legal obligation for inventors to make their inventions available to the world within international standards, let alone on an altruistic FRAND basis.

The standards organisations will have no alternative but to withdraw the standards because this is a requirement of their own constitutions.

This is not about smartphones, this is about every technology on which we depend including manufacturing, the supply of electricity and telecommunications. The breadth of standards incorporating patented inventions is gigantic. Ask any engineer in any field of work.

The trade associations will agree amongst themselves what standards they will follow and the price of the patents. The standards will be trade secrets among the association members. I don't think any legal jurisdiction holds that keeping trade secrets secret is an anti-trust activity (well, if you overlook what the EU did to Microsoft, that is!). There will be no new entrants into the component or device manufacture outside of the trade associations anywhere in the world and the innovation within the trade association will atrophy in favour of increased profits. We should revert to calling them 'trade guilds'.

No new inventions will go into production outside of the trade association framework because of the raft of existing patented inventions that will also be required for any particular product. The trade association cannot be accused of anti-trust or monopoly abuse because any company can join the association... as long as they pay and abide by the association rules.

Just in case you imagine that new companies will invent new ways of doing the tech, I would remind you of the gotcha of software patents. You cannot avoid the patent with alternative software or a different computer language or another processor. Also, even if you think you have avoided a smartphone hardware patent, the patent owner will sue you anyway and try to get you to settle at vast cost.

Here is what Wikipedia says about international standards organisations.
The three largest and most well-established such organizations are the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which have each existed for more than 50 years (founded in 1947, 1906, and 1865, respectively) and are all based in Geneva, Switzerland. They have established tens of thousands of standards covering almost every conceivable topic. Many of these are then adopted worldwide replacing various incompatible 'homegrown' standards. Many of these standards are naturally evolved from those designed in-house within an industry, or by a particular country, while others have been built from scratch by groups of experts who sit on various technical committees (TCs). These three organizations together comprise the World Standards Cooperation (WSC) alliance.
The international standards were introduced towards the start of the last century to overcome the damage to world technology evolution that came from company or trade association based standards and patent protection and the disasterous effect on world trade. The US courts seem intent on sending the world back to the technological dark ages.

Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow. Microsoft products must be bad.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 10 2012 @ 11:49 AM EST
Some conclusions from MS' arguments.

1. The surface doesn't move while powered on as those
patents of Motorola are not relevant to MS. Or maybe you have
to reboot it whenever you're trying to connect to another AP to
include extenders.

2. The XBox and Surface cannot connect to b/g routers only n
routers as b/g patents are irrelevant to MS.

3. Wifi owners should not have wifi security since the end
devices do their own security. Maybe the XBox needing to
support Wifi security is more important than MS states
otherwise it would not be able to use closed Wifi APs and if you
don't close your AP you might be in violation of your agreement
with your ISP.

[ 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 )