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
Accepting the opening negotiation == paying the MSRP for a car | 352 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Accepting the opening negotiation == paying the MSRP for a car
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 03:01 AM EDT
Let me help you get your head back to where the light shines and you can see:

It has been argued many times that Motorola could not name one company that pays
the full 2.25% (opening offer) and thus to ask Microsoft 2.25% (as an opening
offer) is discriminatory.

What has been asked is for those who argue this is to provide ONE COMPANY that
has been given this 2.25% OPENING OFFER (that is given to everyone) and did NOT
attempt to negotiate.

Any company not negotiating would be expected to be paying the initial offering
of 2.25%.

Motorola cannot name one, ergo the conclusion is that every company negotiated.

So to prove that Motorola has been discriminatory against Microsoft all that is
required is the naming of ONE company that did not negotiate (and is not paying
2.25% - which must be true as no one is paying 2.25%).

So prove Motorola has been discriminatory against Microsoft by naming one such
company.

Any attempt at a politician's answer (ie to answer your own question or to
waffle on without answering it) will be have the response of Jeremy Paxman to
Michael Howard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI @ 2:37, 4:51, 5:28) -
the same question will be asked repeatedly until you answer it and not try to
wriggle out of it.

I'll go further - the more you wriggle and refuse to answer, the more the
conclusion must be that you cannot name one as there isn't one.

[ 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 )