They're not asking for 2.25 % per product. They were asking for 2.25 % for their entire portfolio. Microsoft asks for around $15 per smartphone. That's around 5-10% of manufacturing cost or thereabouts.
You can't get rid of the question of "should stuff be patented in the first place"? at the same time as a judge is required to interpret existing law.
The most important part about rates is that they are negotiable. If it's too high? Work it out with the party, maybe even get it down to zero. The fact that such a thing did not occur is the fault explicitly of Microsoft. there was *no* negotiation. There was no discussion with Microsoft outside of the courts as to whether or not this should be license free or should be FRAND or shouldn't.
For these kinds of contract matters you are supposed to work it out with the party. when did that happen, again? It didn't.
They never got to asking for a rate, Mike. There was no negotiation. MS asked them for an offer and then sued, claiming the rate was exorbitant and in bad faith. Not only that, but it was the same rate they charged anyone else. The standards essential pricing. Oh, and MS got a judge so favorable to them that we have to wait until appeals to get rid of the biased guy. Did I mention the judge tried to decide on what Motorola can do internationally in germany?
John Yoo missed nothing. The only reason they want to call "Traditional press" press, for the purposes of free speech protection is because you can shake down traditional press. You can't shake down wikileaks.
It wasn't about legitimacy and never was - it was all about "who can be controlled".
yep. This "in the public interest" claim now directly contradicts all this fighting we have been doing against other countries nullifying patents "in the public interest" (see: medical patents in india, etc)
putting money into a campaign warchest, would imply he has more than pride at stake. That implies he is making a profit off of stop and frisk currently. I wonder how, but nobody spends money on politics without expecting some gigantic benefit to themselves, right?
Motorola asked apple to take a license. apple turned around and sued and requested an EU investigation, while suing in like 5 different places. this is the result. Many of those have been shut down.
How is that exactly motorola going after folks?
I don't know if they were even seeking licenses as much as that if they don't request that someone licenses what they're using they have no redress. Kinda more a patent law issue and less a patents themselves issue.
The fallout from this to SEP patents is also a big deal, so unless we finally stop allowing software patents this will basically stop royalty pools, licensing pools. Why contribute to an actual de-facto standard with your research if you can't even be compensated, I believe was the argument I heard frequently.
Re: DRM is just technology, Mike. Accept it without question.
you don't have to accept recording from glass.
it's also not relevant to the article.
also, it's not surveillance. surveillance is the stuff with the vans, and the cameras, and not glass. not unless someone's going to go on a rooftop and try to google glass you, which would be hilarious.