Linked by bowkota on Tue 7th May 2013 21:44 UTC
Legal "The European Commission has accused Motorola Mobility of abusing its standard-essential patents against Apple in Germany. The Commission has sent a Statement of Objections to the company over a misuse of its GPRS patents, which has seen Motorola pursue injunctions against Apple products instead of properly licensing the technology."
Thread beginning with comment 560922
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th May 2013 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I have to conclude that you cannot read, because what you just quoted - included what you highlighted - actually fully underlines my point.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[14]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Wed 8th May 2013 18:17 in reply to "RE[13]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Motorola does not get to charge something like 2000x the MPEG-LA because they won't get a cross license from Microsoft in that case (for example)

That is obviously outside the spirit of the law, and the DoJ/EC seems to agree. That is taking your weird interpretation of FRAND at face value, which I share skepticism over with Tony Swash.

With that said, I don't know if what your saying is relevant beyond for arguments sake. It is obvious that courts and Governmental entities are disagreeing with your particular take on SEPs.

If they acted in bad faith and unreasonably in the Microsoft case, who's to say they're giving Apple a fair offer?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[14]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 8th May 2013 18:58 in reply to "RE[13]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Ad-hominem attack much?

Reply Parent Score: 2