|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 04:15 PM EST |
A paraphrase of the late Con Smythe.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
product.
(Christenson)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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"
(SSO).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|