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 561049
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Thu 9th May 2013 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what law??"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

Did they refuse to abide by the outcome or to mediate? Which is it? Citation needed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: what law??
by TechGeek on Fri 10th May 2013 14:18 in reply to "RE[3]: what law??"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Did they refuse to abide by the outcome or to mediate? Which is it? Citation needed.


Apple refused to be bound by the outcome of the courts decision. Here is the text from their response to the court:

" When the Court asked Apple on late Tuesday afternoon, October 30, to commit by noon the next day as to whether it would be bound by whatever FRAND finding the Court made, Apple agreed but with caveats as to the amount and scope. The Court’s order dated November 2 states that, because Apple would not make an unconditional commitment to be bound, the Court would reverse its prior decisions regarding the availability of specific performance and

declaratory relief should Apple prove that Motorola breached its FRAND commitments, and questioned whether the trial should proceed at all." This information is available on groklaw here:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012110322254380&query=mot...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Fri 10th May 2013 14:25 in reply to "RE[4]: what law??"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

This is not a refusal to mediate. This is Apple's refusal to accept a binding decision by the Court to set a royalty rate that would potentially affect Apple in a unilateral manner and at a rate higher than Apple felt should be the ceiling for such royalties.

Edited 2013-05-10 14:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2