|
Authored by: vadim on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
Can't Groklaw submit a Friend of Court opinion on this subject? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
If their is such a public interest, what is the vehicle tonotify the court/judge
of the reasons to weigh more heavily on the publics side. Does one contact the
EFF or write a letter or contact the newspapers?
Are there any more appropriate methods?
Shawn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cassini2006 on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
Please put off topic discussions in this thread. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 12:08 PM EDT |
There have been rumours about a takeover, and they do partner on the Blackberry
software.
I can think of several reasons why the might not want to let others know about
3rd party deals.
Maybe a key piece of the BlackBerry is licenced rather than owned and it would
reduce their value if it was know that they just repackaged others work like
Apple's revolutionary screens that they buy from someone else.
Maybe they have some deals related to the new release and Windows phone is now
their closest competitor.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT |
What exactly is a "trade secret" as far as the legal system is concerned? Is
this just a way of saying *everything*, or what us technical geeks might
otherwise think. If it were by my definition then there would still be plenty to
read after proper redactions are made, but PJ makes this sound hopeless to learn
anything. --- The Investors IP Law: The future health of a Corporation
is measured as the inverse of the number of IP lawsuits they are currently
litigating. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jamis on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
If this case is in a federal court, does this mean that there are no federal
laws or restrictions on all of this privacy in a public trial? If so, any
federal trial could become a sealed affair and our judicial system is at great
peril.
I still want to know who paid off whom in the Citizens United case. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nyarlathotep on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
In the Oracle v. Google trial, the conduct of Judge Alsup
with respect to the ideals of our American legal system was
outstanding.
Unfortunately, this trial doesn't feel like it is living up
to the same ideal, and feels more like the standard that our
legal system has become... which is why the majority of
Americans place less faith and respect in our legal system
than we once did.
But, we do have an election coming up. When our legal system
fails, it is ultimately the fault of the American people.
The local elections matter too... especially judges.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
That is, there are enough agreements here that statistcs should apply, and
undoubtedly will apply. Therefore, let a special master "fudge" the
numbers
in these agreements, such that they retain their statistical properties, but
are not actually the true numbers.
This would allow the whole thing to be public, without jeopardizing the
interests of the non-parties.
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
Telecoms don't want people to know exactly how much they are
being screwed! Currently telecoms consider it their job to
provide the least service for the most money. That is exactly
the opposite of what we need to get out of recession in an
information economy!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
That's really really stinky,
Sure there is a danger that each of these companies is going
to take a beating in negotiations if others discover how
much/little is being paid.
What worries me more is just how stinky this really is.
When someone looks for that level of opacity, it is *only*
because they have something to hide from someone.
I have always considered these cross licensing deals to be
something of a circular investment program.
All of these companies have vast patent portfolios, some are
worth more than others, but this is a situation where
A pays B who pays C who pays D who pays A and variations.
In investment funds that kind of dealing/trading is
specifically banned because it is (and has been) used to
artificially inflate the value of the fund portfolio. It
looks great till someone tries to liquidate their
investment, get the money, at which point the downward
spiral starts and accelerates very rapidly and another
bubble bursts/market crashes.
So that's one thing, at the other end, we all know just how
rubbish most of these patents are and what value we would
place on them, zero in most cases; but how much money do
these companies book to these cross licensing deals for
these worthless patents and then just how much corporate tax
is lost due to these companies moving money away from the
profit line with this trick.
So you lose because your government doesn't get it's due,
and you lose again because these guys are basically running
a cartel that artificially inflates their costs so you are
charged more for your goods.
Starbucks recently got caught in the UK avoiding billions in
tax, by 'licensing' it's own logo from itself for pretty
much all of it's profit.
Indeed avoidance is not wrong, as they said, they followed
the rules, but it is just as stinky as politicians writing
their own expenses claim rules and then claiming that they
were only following the rules as they repeatedly dipped
their hands into the till.
Is it possible that Googles "do no evil" policy prevents
them from joining in the game and may result in the cat
getting out of the bag?
IANAL or an accountant so I don't know.
I do know it reeks.
These people could have sat at a table and reached an
agreement they decided to fight it out in a public place in
front of the public.
They should not now be allowed to change their minds and ask
that it not be public, unless they choose to do so by
settling the matter before it arises.
I for one would like to see the corruption exposed.
Just speculatin'[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
I get that they feel their lingerie draw is about to be made
front page news, but their argument is that the license
document motorola is going to use will "expose" their
portfolio pricing method.
but...but... is it not the case that IBM widely licenses its
patent portfolio? so pretty much everyone involved has
already got access to the same information in the form of
their own licensing agreement , so what's the problem? maybe
possibly they might be looking at slightly as a result of
being in a weak negotitating position, everyone knows how it
works.
but..but...IBMs patent portfolio is a constantly shifting
beast it expires, it expands, markets change, value
perception changes, needs change, supply changes, demand
changes every single day, so IBM has to change its pricing
model every single day, so the document that resulted from a
negotiation that took place 1 or two years ago is absolutely
worthless when preparing for a negotiation that is going to
take place tomorrow.
It is a specious argument.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
Anything we can do to stop this? To ask the court to make those documents
public? Anything legal we could do - like Reuters did with the Apple/Samsung
case - as a third-party?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
These companies want their dealings sealed, that is, hidden from public view.
Just what are the limits to public view?
Supposedly these companies have boards and shareholders. Are the small
shareholders among those excluded from knowing?
What about institutional investors and THEIR share-/stakeholders (which could
include say pension funds)?
Shareholders are the owners and legally employers of boards. I they can't see
the content of financial dispositions, only read the net result on the corporate
statement, has the employer/employee relationship been turned on its head?
This agreement amongst opponents to seal is worrying. It points to an unhealthy
collusion between financial interests not in the interest of society.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BJ on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
While I myself note that the link behind
"this declaration in support [PDF] of IBM's motion"
is dead.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
Personally, as well as corporately. If the judge gets two or three thousand
Amicus filings, I suspect he'll get a better understanding of the situation.
I'm not going to suggest what you put into your Amicus. We all have
different viewpoints as to what is wrong with this case. Also if we all file the
same Amicus it will look like an attempt to AstroTurf the court, and w don't
want to do that.
We do howev want to be heard.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
Markets depend on information. Yes a commercial secret may allow one to get a
temporary jump on the market and make a windfall profit, but that happens
because the secrecy creates a flaw in the market and you can make a windfall
profit by exploiting the flaw. There are no secrets in a perfectly functioning
market. Markets can stand a little bit of secrecy, but too much of it and the
market stops behaving like a market should. Without information there is no
market and therefore no market price. What all these companies desperately
imploring the court to hide every detail of their license agreements says to me
is that there is no functional market for these licence agreements. And
therefore there is no real market price. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
One of the problems which this case raises is that the judge wants to
overturn the current understanding of FRAND and substitute something new that
will benefit Apple. However, what about existing licenses, or licenses that will
need to be renewed in future? If existing terms become exposed, it won't be just
the public who find out about them, it will be all the licensees as well. They
will then see just what a wild range of terms and rates are in
effect.
I can imagine that once a new FRAND precedent is set, some
existing licensees will open up lawsuits claiming that they have been "wronged"
because the license the were offered wasn't really "FRAND". They will be
marching into this judge's court demanding new terms equivalent to Apple's under
the "non-discriminatory" clause. If Apple succeeds, this could be just the
beginning of a complete lawsuit melt-down.
Oh where are the "FRAND is
so wonderful in standards" pundits now?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: joef on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
Given that the FRAND issue is generally considered to be unplowed ground,
whatever the judge decides will be making law from the bench.
In our system,
any lawmaking of such consequences as are anticipated by the Groklaw commenters
should go through the full legislative process, including public hearings with
informed testimony. Such lawmaking should not be done from the bench in
the context of a high-stakes adversarial battle.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DCFusor on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 02:31 PM EST |
This is nuts. Yes, I understand things are complex, as IBM mentions - there are
all these cross-trading agreements that make the value exchanged for a single
thing hard to figure.
Don't you dare give up on covering this, even if the secrecy is the main news -
People might want to know who has something to hide.
But that's no excuse for us to not find out how much say, an android maker who
caved is paying MS.
And it's not an excuse to keep these kinds of details hidden. Moto could be
trying to gouge, or just get the best deal they can, who knows? We will never
know if we don't make enough fuss, that's certain.
An example that comes to mind was what Apple wanted Samsung to pay for
non-essential patents, and how much huger that was than what Samsung wanted for
*essential* patents. It made Apple look like the predator, - charging a ton but
refusing to pay even a little, when cross licensing. I think we the public
deserve to know who is doing the "sharp dealing" here (though of
course, we can kind of guess).
---
Why guess, when you can know? Measure it![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 03:11 PM EST |
When IBM, etc., wrote their frand license agreements with
the respective parties, I expect that there is a
confidentiality clause. By Microsoft and/or Motorola
deciding to take these individual contracts into court to
use as evidence (of what I do not know), that
confidentiality clause has been broken. What kind of mess
is this going to make in the legal system? For the
individual company's profit, to the cost of the product to
the consumer?
We the public do not need to know the value of each
individual business contract. There are many variables that
go into pricing a product, one of which is: is IBM going to
sell more of this than RIM? If so, maybe IBM deserves a
lower rate. If Apple pays $2 or $5 for frand licensing, it's
probably not going to change the cost to the consumer. Now
that Google owns Motorola I expect somethings to change
regarding Android licensing as well. (I personally don't
know if Android is free or licensed under frand terms.)
Some of us expect that when something enters our public
courts, all the information should be displayed to
everybody. In this case I respectfully disagree. IBM
didn't ask to have it's business contracts revealed, so they
should not be. In fact the judge shouldn't allow them to
enter the case at all.
On this I will agree with most of you. The judge should sit
them down in a conference room and make they come to terms.
He/she should not set a price. No product leaves a
warehouse until the terms of the contract are agreed to.
Neither Apple or Microsoft can sit on millions of units of
inventory very long without being allowed to sell anything
in the US, or potentially world wide.
To me, that's how this problem should get resolved.
wjarvis, not logged in.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|