|
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
In case you think PJ has made a mistake. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
Post yer off topics here.
Even if they've only gone a little off.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Google is dropping open standards - Evil - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 02:33 PM EDT
- Flesh-eating bacteria victim Aimee Copeland shows off her new $200,000 bionic hands - Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- Open Source Is Not A Warzone - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- Broadband down - Android to the rescue - it just works :-) - Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- Er where? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 10:56 AM EDT
- On the topic of Web Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 05:42 PM EDT
- Laughs at the Supreme Court: a study - Authored by: xtifr on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 03:35 AM EDT
- Skype with care – Microsoft is reading everything you write - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 03:42 PM EDT
- Help - undeletable AV - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 10:17 PM EDT
- 30 Years Ago Today - May 19, 1983 - Catalyst for Russian perestroika - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 10:44 AM EDT
- Google Glass? I can't bear to look - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 06:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
Pick all your news in this thread. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- VP9 is (almost) here! - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- Stevens: Rationale for Bush v. Gore was “unacceptable” - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- ReadWrite's new policy of making their articles impossible to copy and paste? OK with Chrome... - Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 04:38 PM EDT
- Windows 8 won't hit critical mass in enterprises, Forrester says - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 06:02 PM EDT
- Google’s VP8 License Proposal - Authored by: tknarr on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 06:17 PM EDT
- News Picks: Alcatel v Newegg - Authored by: webster on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 11:44 PM EDT
- Thats a huge number! "only one in 10 American smartphone users would use Google Glass regularly" - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 03:46 AM EDT
- Add this to the News Picks PJ... Awesome - London in 1927 - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 04:31 AM EDT
- FP: Canada’s Competition Bureau plans investigation into Google Canada - Authored by: glennjones130486 on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 11:48 AM EDT
- [cryptography] skype backdoor confirmation - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 01:56 PM EDT
- Why am I not surprised... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 07:28 PM EDT
- News Pick Is a broadcast to everyone private under the Copyright Act? - Authored by: dio gratia on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 10:19 PM EDT
- Cheap genetic testing -- PJ, Careful please! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 11:46 PM EDT
- Patents, patent tolls, PAEs, software patents - Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 12:45 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
If I remember correctly, Judge Robart's
ruling dismissed a lot of Motorola's
evidence because it included Motorola's
cellular SEPs which was much stronger and
more valuable than its video and WiFi
SEPs.
So, Apple is trying to say something the
ruling explicitly said cannot be inferred.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AMackenzie on Saturday, May 18 2013 @ 05:13 AM EDT |
If a company like Apple refuses to pay the rate set by a judge, can't its
opponents have them prosecuted for contempt of court, or send in the bailiffs to
seize assets?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 03:35 AM EDT |
From Motorola's argument:
"[The consent decree] prohibit[s] Respondents from
“obtaining or enforcing”—but not seeking—an injunction in a
pending action “unless and until Respondents have made
Qualified Offers to the Potential licensee"
So, their argument is they're free to ASK for an injunction,
but can't actually be granted one, and can't enforce it if
they did get one?
Why wouldn't a judge throw such a request out in the
interest of judicial efficiency (just as they threw out
Apple's request for a FRAND rate that they refused to be
bound by if it were set in Wisconsin)?
This specific point feels pretty weak from Motorola.
Especially because, as I read it, they can cure the issue
themselves, by "making a Qualified Offer to the Potential
Licensee." They're going to have to do it anyways to
enforce an injunction if the judge sees fit to grant one.
Why wouldn't the judge insist they do it beforehand, so
they're not wasting time issuing an injunction that is (at
the time it's issued) moot?
I'm sure putting a number on the table by Motorola weakens
their position, but this portion of their appeal reads like
pure legal gamesmanship. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: john-from-ct on Sunday, May 19 2013 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
Now that would be really funny! :) Toss Microsoft in the
slammer for a felony Terms of Service violation, copyright
violations, etc., etc! :)
---
Just another greybeard geek![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|