|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:22 AM EST |
And then read the above, and see if it matches your expectation.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 06:21 AM EST |
I love 3:
3. refuses to enter a License Agreement covering the
FRAND Patent on terms that have been set in the Final Ruling of a Court or
through Binding Arbitration; or
Isn't that exactly what Apple told
the Court if the Court set a rate higher then $1 per Unit? The Act which
got Apple's case booted from Court?
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SteveRose on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:02 AM EST |
It's useful to indicate the error in the title, e.g. speeling -> spelling
Steve
---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SteveRose on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:04 AM EST |
...
---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SteveRose on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:06 AM EST |
Please include a link to the article for easy access after it scrolls off the
main page.
---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- “No Microsoft products were reported stolen” - Authored by: albert on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 04:19 PM EST
- German facebook user fined for image copyright infringement while sharing link - Authored by: ash4stuff on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 06:00 PM EST
- Microsoft says somebody stole its Apple iPads - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 11:14 PM EST
- "a vacuum tube from the first demonstration of broadcast television" - Authored by: artp on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 12:55 AM EST
- TV in 1936 - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 03:10 PM EST
- TV in 1936 - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 03:43 PM EST
- TV in 1936 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 05:12 PM EST
- TV in 1936 - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 05:25 PM EST
- TV in 1907 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 05:33 PM EST
- Father of the Internet on Tech: 'It Should Just Work' - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 07:47 AM EST
- Novell's board must face investor suit over Attachmate sale - Authored by: albert on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 08:28 PM EST
|
Authored by: SteveRose on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:08 AM EST |
...
---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 08:20 AM EST |
Quote from the Register comments by Paul Shirley:
"unreported
detail of the SEP injunction ruling
Details are now emerging that the FTC *did
not* forbid
seeking injunctions on Googles standards essential patents.
What
they actually did was require a 6months negotiation
window *before* seeking
injunctions. Paradoxically that may
actually be massively helpful to Google. I
can understand
why the usual sources of PR sent to the Reg might not want
to
highlight this...
One problem with FRAND licensing is it rarely sets time
limits on the negotiation or acquisition of licenses. That
makes companies
cautious about going to court because courts
tend to refuse to deal with cases
till far more than 6months
of failed negotiation has passed. Motorola waited
several
years before even asking for injunctions against Apple for
example.
Companies (and Google specifically) now have a good argument
that 6
months is an appropriate delay. They can now initiate
negotiations and if, like
Apple, the other side stonewalls
for 6 months they have a much improved chance
of getting an
injunction quickly. Getting it while the products are still
selling. Getting it years quicker.
The other aspect is that injunctions on
FRAND patents where
the other side showed willingness and good faith
negotiation
were already being consistently denied by the courts, the
FTC
changed nothing there. However many observers believe
some higher US courts are
swinging alarmingly to outright
banning these injunctions even with bad faith
from potential
licensees, this FTC decision might just bring them back to a
more balanced position.
Bear in mind this was kicked off by Motorola finally
losing
patience with Apple over negotiating a FRAND rate. After
several years.
Apple's refusal to negotiate means this FTC
ruling doesn't apply. The licence
manoeuvres that led to
Apple needing a licence are a different issue that the
FTC
doesn't seem interested in."
Spot on --- RMS: The 4
Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:16 AM EST |
Microsoft always prefer their own de-facto, locked down standards and a policy
that undermines or destroys real standards is exactly what they want.
Damage to public standard setting is not a side effect here, it may even be the
dominant intention over the obvious attempt at hobbling Google or shaving
pennies off their licence fees.
I think MS have forgotten how much trouble they get into going alone though,
since they seem incapable of avoiding other peoples IP when creating their own
'standards'. VC1 being the best known example, where they make nothing because
other people own most of the IP in it. Something only discovered after MS made
their misguided attempt to make VC1 a standard they could milk.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:20 AM EST |
This article is way off, moto wanted 2.25% of the final product, that is not
FRAND in any way, if every company wanted a percent of the final product then we
wouldn't be able to afford anything. This is a article with bias and lacks
common sense. Nobody in there right mind would give that percentage of the final
product...hence why the major android oems (Samsung/google) are are still under
investigation by multiple jurisdictions around the world...and I can bet the EU
wont go as soft as the FTC.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Motorola Tells Its FRAND Story to the Court in Seattle ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:40 AM EST
- Beware of the mad judge - Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:45 AM EST
- Motorola Tells Its FRAND Story to the Court in Seattle ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 10:03 AM EST
- What was Microsoft's counter offer? (n/t) - Authored by: myNym on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 12:16 PM EST
- Motorola Tells Its FRAND Story to the Court in Seattle ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 03:31 PM EST
- Umm, so wrong its still wrong - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 02:11 AM EST
- Motorola Tells Its FRAND Story to the Court in Seattle ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 05:25 AM EST
- Motorola Tells Its FRAND Story to the Court in Seattle ~pj - Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 06:29 AM EST
- Motorola Tells Its FRAND Story to the Court in Seattle ~pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 10:16 AM EST
- Motorola Tells Its FRAND Story to the Court in Seattle ~pj - Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, January 06 2013 @ 03:26 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 12:56 PM EST |
rate of 2.25% of the price per unit
At the
moment companies and subsidiaries assemble boards or parts of boards. Often
this is done for tax purposes so the profitable "step" in he assembly occurs in
the lowest tax jurisdiction, but also to use up excess capacity like SONY
building Raspberry Pi, and Samsung building iphones. Could this approach also
be used to reduce payouts for FRAND patents? A subsidiary instals the license
to the boards at a very low cost then sells them back to the parent?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:58 PM EST |
(PJ:) I'd do Microsoft's too, but it's a 43-page tiff, and I
can't do
such a long document by hand.
PJ, I'm doing
an OCR of that brief, will send it shortly.
--- "When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|