|
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 04:48 PM EST |
I don't think that "with prejudice" has much impact.
Apple was trying to get the court to rule that Motorola must offer a Fair and
Reasonable (e.g. low cost) rate. They were trying to use the contracts with the
standards-setting organization to have this happen.
Except that Apple was, in the clearest sense, a third party in that contract.
They were trying to force specific performance in a contract they had not
negotiated or signed. Apple was even trying to force specific performance after
they hadn't even followed the arbitration process specified by the standards
organization.
Why doesn't the "with prejudice" matter? Because it doesn't apply to
any other company or situation. It doesn't even preclude Apple from following
the negotiation/arbitration steps and coming back to the court whining about the
rate.
In fact I suspect that the latter issue is why the judge ruled the way she did.
Apple is going to be back in court, either arguing about the rate or arguing
about the validity of the patents. There is no point in letting them re-file
for step 1, when it doesn't decide anything.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|