Authored by: FreeChief on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
Put a short summary of the correction in the title.
Example: Ta. ::=
Corrections here
— Programmer in Chief
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
Does any one know what the German Governments views are on the US declaring
their laws null and void? Surely they must be wondering WT? In Canada we have
gotten used to the US deciding our laws don't apply to Americans but I would
think Germany would have a little more back bone. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:23 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How a rogue appeals court wrecked the patent system... - Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:47 PM EDT
- Reforming the Patent System Toward a Minimalist System - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 06:26 AM EDT
- Predicting the future of fanbois - Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 09:23 AM EDT
- The Colour Purple (pantone 2685C) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- Sorry, Tim Cook, apology not accepted - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- Google Passes Microsoft’s Market Value as PC Loses to Web - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- Ultrabooks fail to catch on - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 04:23 PM EDT
- Apple v. Samsung judge ends Galaxy Tab ban - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 11:31 PM EDT
- Samsung sues Apple as expected - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 12:05 AM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
Thank you for your support
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2012 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AH1 on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 07:43 PM EDT |
Can anyone explain to me why a District Court in Washington State and the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals actually believes that they have Jurisdiction in this
case? From what I understand about the RAND agreements they are an agreement
between members of the ITU. I can see where members of the ITU in the U.S.
might be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts for disagreements within
the United States, I do not understand how this can apply in an international
setting though. The German courts have made it clear that they do not recognize
third party agreements per their laws and the RAND is a third party agreement.
I did a search for ITU treaties and RAND based treaties and came up empty. So
it does not look like there is even an international agreement here. From where
I sit, it looks like the Federal Courts in the 9th Circuit have once again
overstepped their authority. Is there something I have missed? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ or Mark - Court Calendars - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT
- Jurisdiction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 02:10 AM EDT
- Jurisdiction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 04:55 AM EDT
- Jurisdiction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 10:32 AM EDT
- Jurisdiction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
"What it promised to do, as the ruling itself quotes, is to *negotiate* a
license:"
IANAL, but I think you are missing something from your analysis?
In England we would treat this kind of promise as a "covenant" (rather
than a license) which is an old common law thing, like a contract but it doesn't
require that either side benefits (at least initially).
They are most commonly used now for things like sales of land built on the site
of old factories to say you cannot compete with the business that sold the
land.
So I think the court(s) is correct to say there is a sort of implied contract? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
Which is necessary to enforce the injunction...
I wonder if it would be possible for anyone else to post it
on their behalf.
There must be no shortage of organisations that would like
to stick it to Microsoft, and possibly even some who would
financially benefit from blocking their German sales.
Cough... Sony?
No idea if that would be possible or legal...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I have a tenner, how much do we need? :-) n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2012 @ 09:14 PM EDT
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 07:53 AM EDT
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 09:02 AM EDT
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
Wiktionary:
FRAND "Fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory; a
standard used with respect to licensing"
RAND "Reasonable and
nondiscriminatory; a standard used with respect to
licensing."
Could someone please give a better, more vivid
description? How do we know this case is either of them? Thanks in
advance!
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pem on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 12:42 AM EDT |
It will be interesting to see what happens with the appeals process in Germany.
If Motorola wins the appeal (or if Microsoft doesn't appeal properly), it would
appear the injunction could issue without Motorola posting a bond or taking any
other action.
That would be when things would get interesting. A court in the US ruling that
Motorola has to license patents worldwide, vs. a court in Germany ruling that
Microsoft has to stop shipping.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 12:51 AM EDT |
So why doesn't Motorola just ask the German court to enjoin Microsoft from
enforcing the injunction enjoining Motorola from enforcing its patent
enforcement injunction? :-)
Sure, such an injunction would be just as much poppycock as the US injunction in
terms of the jurisdiction of a court in one country to prevent the enforcement
of an injunction from a court in another country, but the point of this would be
for the German court to say to the US court "We have just as much or as
little jurisdiction to do this as you do. Now that we've done it to you, we
trust you'll realize how absurd it is and stop it."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 01:40 AM EDT |
Is this where we see the German courts charging Microsoft or its agents with
contempt?
It seems to me (IANAL) that it is fairly contemptuous of country's court to go
to another country's court and get an injunction preventing the enforcement of
the first's ruling.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
The industry and consumers are just waiting for the next XBox
as the bulk of sales already has occurred. Now Microsoft just
has to delay this until they release the next XBox. Then we
get to start this again depending on what things go into the
next version and how Microsoft avoids these issues.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
Notice that Apple and MS have he exact same FRAND
misunderstanding and negotiation failures?
Not that I agree with FRAND however i think this is out of
MS's sink Linux anyway they can playbook and they just handed
the playbook around to anyone who would like to copy it..
I would point out to Apple that MS partners tend to loose
market share rather than gain when they adopt MS
tactics..just ask Nokia[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
Definitely Groklaw should ask for this proceeding to be videoed. My guess is
that Google(Motorola) will agree and Microsoft will oppose. If the case is not
recorded we will probably not find out who stopped it, since the local rules say
that that information will not be disclosed.
Reading the guidelines I'm not sure when the videos will become available. They
speak of recording and uploading the videos so there may be some delay in their
availability.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
The Juory Expert
East Texas Jurors and Patent Litigation
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/east-texas-jurors-and-patent-litigation/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|