|
Authored by: artp on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
Error in Title Block, please, if possible.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:31 AM EDT |
The judge has trouble staying on topic, but you should stay
Off Topic. Oops, that was On Topic!
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lawyer Loses It In Letter To Patent Office - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 12:23 PM EDT
- Off Topic but on topic too - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- gGlass source now OPEN - GNU GPL v2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- BT trolling small SIP users over US patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 08:12 AM EDT
- FIFA Joao Havelange resigns over corruption scandal - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 08:57 AM EDT
- Project Open 4.0 can now round trip to MS Project - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 12:05 PM EDT
- Meanwhile, - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 03:54 PM EDT
- First website ever goes back online on the open Web’s 20th birthday - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 12:14 PM EDT
- Patent Problem: Those willing to abuse their patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- Obama to nominate cable lobbyist to head FCC - Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 03:43 PM EDT
- British Telecom patents SIP .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 03:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
URL, please.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Afghan President Hamid Karzai has confirmed his office received money from the CIA - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- Microsoft takes a dig at Samsung and Apple users in new ad - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- One Year Later, the Results of Tor Books UK Going DRM-Free - Authored by: alanyst on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- Opera Claims... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- Aye but.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 04:52 AM EDT
- Link? - Authored by: albert on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 11:37 AM EDT
- Alert: We are wiretapping you! - Authored by: cassini2006 on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 09:32 PM EDT
- Spain's Extremadura starts switch of 40,000 government PCs to open source - Authored by: albert on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 11:28 AM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
For more Microsoft lawsuit goodness!
See link above for more information: "Comes v. MS".
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
"And as you will see, that is the very danger that the conference
highlighted, that patent pools can impede innovation, by lowering the price for
newcomers to a field who wish to merely implement the standard, like Microsoft,
by letting them unfairly underpay those who did the research to develop the
standard, as in Motorola."
Am I reading that right? Did PJ say something "pro-patent"?
It must be end-times. I'm sure I read something about that in Revelations...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cassini2006 on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
Microsoft usually tries to never give a royalty payment on the sale of
Microsoft Windows, because of the precedent that it might set. Did Motorola
just get 0.555 cents/unit (the low bound) on every copy of Windows shipped?
plus the same for a whole bunch of other Microsoft products that use H.264?
That's something like 32 million dollars per year using 5.88 billion dollars
per year in Windows revenue, an average selling price of $100, and 0.555
cents/unit royalty. That's a pretty good precedent for Motorola's lawyers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
SISVEL are the ones behind seizures of various devices at the CeBIT and IFA
exhibitions 2006-2008 over alleged MP3 patent violations.
They also tried to shake down Openmoko because a user might install software
that would make it capable of playing MP3s.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
It is simply unproven that if the potential financial windfall
for patent licenses are not as good, innovators will go home
and stay on the couch. Where is the proof of this?
If I have a method and process for teleportation would I
really just not do it because patent license prices suck?
Besides, you want innovators to be motivated by profits they
can make for products they sell not from selling patent
licenses, intended by patent law. Where am I wrong?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
Andy Updegrove's blog post refers to "a good summary, by Jorge
Contreras" with no link. I suspect he means
SO THAT’S WHAT “RAND” MEANS?, on Patently-O, April 27. This is in
addition to Prof. Contreras' SSRN paper
Fixing
FRAND: A Pseudo-Pool Approach to Standards-Based Patent Licensing, also a
Newspick here April 27.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
Pardon my stupidity but if the trial is alleging a 'breach
of
contract,
is that not the aim of the verdict - to decide
whether or not the initial
offer was in breach of Motorola's
'voluntary' contract with the ITU as
SSO. The Judge should,
therefore look first at "the intent of the parties"
as part
of interpreting this contract (as aside don't Microsoft also
have to play fair with this as obtaining rights as 'third
party
beneficiary' and abide by the guidelines of the SSO in
terms of intention,
to fulfil their responsibilities).
(As I have
previously
argued).
This article:
Interpreting and Enforcing the Voluntary FRAND
Commitment
from The International Journal of IT Standards and
Standardization Research gives an extremely well
reasoned
set
of arguments on this subject. They also address several
issues not taken
into consideration in the Andy Updegrove
article referred to by pj on the
main page. Similarly, this
presentation from the ITU gives a good overview
of the
"intent" of the SSOs in the idea of voluntary SEP
(F)RAND
commitments:
ITU
Presentation on
Considerations for Developing or Revising PSO IPR
Policies
To decide 'breach of contract' shouldn't the Judge reproduce
the negotiations, as if the first standard
offer was
to
any
party
- not just Microsoft - as 'Non Discriminatory' rather than
reproduce an arbitration with MS allowed to enter
special
considerations of which Motorola were not made aware before
their
first two offers. Cross licensing could have produced
a zero price which
still does not mean the first offer was
not in "good faith". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eric76 on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
It seems to me that Microsoft could end up being a big loser on this issue.
It is indisputable that Microsoft has a great many patents. Imagine of everyone
they sought to receive royalties payments from were to have a judge set the
royalty rates far below what they would have been otherwise. If that happens,
Microsoft might as well not even have patents.
If Microsoft wants to use their patents against others, what is going to be
their argument for meaningful royalty rates?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
If we're truly lucky, on appeal the cost will be set to nothing. All standards
should be royalty free.
Arguing otherwise is just arguing for 'good patents' which is absurd in the
context of this blog.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 07:41 AM EDT |
IANAL, but I want to explore PJ's assertion that the burden
for determining the rate is all on Microsoft.
As I understand it, RAND is a promise to negotiate a license
with all comers (the "Non-Discriminatory" aspect). In this
case, no agreement was reached.
I'd agree that Microsoft has the burden to show that a
negotiation SHOULD HAVE taken place - they need to prove
that they are entitled to a RAND license, and establish that
the court should force that license if the parties can't
negotiate to it (I don't agree that the court should have
agreed with them, but there you go...)
But once the court establishes that a licese should exist,
isn't the burden on BOTH parties to establish their case as
to what the "proper" license rate should be? Once the court
has reached the decision "there will be a license - we need
to set the rate," why is it Microsoft's burden alone to
establish what the rate should be? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nslm on Thursday, May 02 2013 @ 07:49 AM EDT |
Is it just me, or does the judge not mention the European patents at all?
Given that the Judge has already decided that since any licensing agreement
would cover the European patents too and therefore entitles him to block the
German legal rulings, surely the rate should take into account the European
patents too. His rate seems based entirely on the US patents, which aren't the
only ones at dispute in this "contract" dispute. As such, if he's
going to base the decision on good faith purely on a very low interpretation of
a negotiated rate of only SOME of the patents to be licensed he's just added a
significant bias in favour of Microsoft.
Additionally, his comments about the patents not being "essential" to
Microsoft and thus setting a low rate seem flawed since IIRC at least some of
the patents have already been ruled as violated by a judge who's jurisdiction he
does not have the authority to challenge. Already knowing you're going to win
in a court of law is unlikely to predispose you to negotiating low...
(I could be mixing up multiple trials here...)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|