decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Holes in your argument | 173 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Holes in your argument
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 12:53 AM EST
To clarify: I'm not calling Motorola a patent troll, or comparing to them. I'm
just saying that the standard for a PI in patent cases, in general, should be
high. In particular, a patenting entity who keeps a patent to itself as a
competitive advantage has a good case for a PI, but anyone who licenses the
patent to others must have a higher burden to get a PI.

As someone else mentioned, Apple's granting of a license to HTC ought to
undermine its claim to a PI against Samsung. If it will accept money from one
competitor, it has a hard time arguing that it cannot be made whole by damages.

I should further note that this refers to the PI stage. If there is a finding
of infringement, particuiclarly in cases where the infringer still refuses to
pay damages, than an injunction becomes more appropriate. But many PIs are
requested to get an advantage in negotiations in a settlement.

One other thing: The fact that MS is allegedly violating MS patents ought to
give Motorola a decent "unclean-hands" defense--even if Motorola's
patents in question are standards-essential and RAND, and MS's patents are
not.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )