|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 07:08 PM EDT |
Please include a link to the article you are
referencing as they will roll off of the main page.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
A quad on the quad as it were.
Please make any links clickable.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The FBI is the enemy .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 08:07 PM EDT
- What really happened to the software on the Mars Pathfinder spacecraft? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 11:27 PM EDT
- Hybridization, and Backcrossing, and Macroevolution! Oh, my! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 11:56 PM EDT
- Hybridization, and Backcrossing, and Macroevolution? Oh, my? - Authored by: bprice on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 02:05 AM EDT
- Hybridization, and Backcrossing, and Macroevolution! Oh, my! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 06:33 AM EDT
- Me, Gringo - not logged on n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 06:35 AM EDT
- Hybridization, and Backcrossing, and Macroevolution! Oh, my! - Authored by: Nick_UK on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 06:54 AM EDT
- Well, under the right circumstances, fruit can (and does) ferment naturally . . . - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 08:43 AM EDT
- Creative theories (sic) - Authored by: artp on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- Is Creationism offlimits? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 11:39 AM EDT
- more proof ;) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 08 2013 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- Résumé Shows Snowden Honed Hacking Skills - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 11:56 PM EDT
- Cheers SpaceLifeForm - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 12:11 AM EDT
- AT&T business model - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 07:09 AM EDT
- Microsoft innovation and the Tadag NDA .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- 40 Best Signs From The “Restore The Fourth” Rallies - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 08:33 AM EDT
- Monty Python's flying lawsuit - Authored by: jmc on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 09:30 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 10:05 PM EDT |
What grounds does the judge use to insist that Washington State law is the
governing law for the RAND contract? That seems wrong from the start.
--Alma[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
“Because the IEEE and the ITU agreements
anticipate that the
parties will negotiate towards a RAND
license, it logically does not follow
that initial offers
must be on RAND terms. Here, critical to the court is the
observation that RAND terms cannot be determined until after
a negotiation by
the parties. . . As stated above, the
purpose behind the IEEE and the ITU
agreements is to ensure
widespread access to standard essential patents. Thus,
a
requirement that the standard essential patent holder (here,
Motorola) make
unsolicited offers on RAND terms would
frustrate this purpose by discouraging
the standard
essential patent holder to make initial contact with
implementers
for fear that it will later be sued for making
an initial offer that is later
determined as not RAND.
Accordingly, the court concludes that under Motorola’s
agreements with the IEEE and the ITU, Motorola need not make
initial offers on
RAND terms.”
"Reasonable" does not exist in a vacuum. RAND
terms are
in the eye of the negotiating parties. If there is no
counter offer,
there is no way to say whether the offer was
reasonable or not. Microsoft was
clearly in breach of good
faith negotiation when they went crying to the judge
instead
of making a counter offer. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 12:29 AM EDT |
...the district court rejected a claim that a
party had breached
its duty of good faith and fair dealing
under New York law by making an offer
“insisting upon terms
it knew would be deal-breakers.”
Then-Judge
Sotomayor noted that “[n]othing in the duty of
good faith requires that parties
to a negotiation propose
only such terms as the other party is happy with,” and
that
any such rule “would turn the normal negotiating process on
its
head.”
The court contrasted the claim it rejected with hypothetical
cases in which it acknowledged bad faith might have been
plausibly alleged:
e.g., if the defendant had “sat back
for the thirty-day period and refused
all of [the
counterparty’s] terms while offering none of its
own”...
...“there was no good faith effort to resolve the parties’
disputes through negotiation,” reasoning that “back and
forth, low ball high
ball negotiations ... are nothing
unusual” and emphasizing that “just
because one side
views another side’s settlement offer as unreasonable does
not mean that the offer was made in bad faith”.
It's
like she anticipated Microsoft's antics.
This comment and the one above
by Gringo - not logged on.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
Googorola concludes, after many examples of very strong
case law to back it
up, that...
...considerable case law in other contract
contexts establishes that the amount of any single offer
alone, especially an
initial offer designed to get
negotiations started, cannot be dispositive of a
breach of
good faith and fair dealing.
This judge clearly
made an error. Is it too late for him
undo it now?
Gringo [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 05 2013 @ 04:32 AM EDT |
From Motorola's public statements that I
remember, the 2.25% royalty rate covers
all of Motorola's SEPs across all
standards that the device implements.
However the judge only set the royalty
rate on two standards. Does these
Microsoft's devices at issue implement
other standards? Also what about future
devices that implement additional
standards? We're back to the courts...
That across all standard then starts to
become a discount with lots of implemented
standards.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|