Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 13:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 539749
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Apples and oranges
by oskeladden on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 21:51
in reply to "RE[5]: Apples and oranges"
I fail to see where you oppose my point.
Err..
My point is that:
a) Apple is unrestricted in relation to the price it can legally charge to license its patents.
b) Motorola is subject to severe restrictions in relation to the price it can legally charge to license its patents.
The size of the royalty Apple is demanding for its patents is therefore legally irrelevant to the size of the royalty Motorola is legally entitled to demand from Apple. Groklaw's complaint - that Apple is being inconsistent in claiming that Motorola is charging too much when it is demanding more - is therefore, in legal terms, totally incorrect. The fundamental flaw in it is that it is based on comparing a figure that is not subject to any legal restrictions with a figure that is - and the entire question is about whether the legal restrictions applicable to the latter have been complied with.
If you agree with all of this, then great - you did, however, start off claiming that Groklaw's complaint has substance.
Edited 2012-10-23 21:52 UTC
RE[7]: Apples and oranges
by JAlexoid on Wed 24th Oct 2012 02:58
in reply to "RE[6]: Apples and oranges"




Member since:
2009-05-19
I fail to see where you oppose my point.