|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|