Despite its position, Apple maintains that it is entitled to specific performance in the form of the court determining what a FRAND rate is for Motorola's patents. At the final pretrial conference, I asked Apple to explain why it believed the court should determine a FRAND rate even though the rate may not resolve the parties' licensing or infringement disputes. I questioned whether it was appropriate for a court to undertake the complex task of determining a FRAND rate if the end result would be simply a suggestion that could be used later as a bargaining chip between the parties. Apple responded that the rate would resolve the dispute in this particular case, namely, whether Motorola's license offer was FRAND and if not, what the rate should have been.

Apple's response was not satisfactory and did not assuage my concerns about determining a FRAND rate that may be used solely as a negotiating tool between the parties. After further consideration, I believe it would be inappropriate to grant Apple's clarified request for specific performance.

Apple's allegations of "irreparable harm" have at least two problems. The first problem is that Apple's request for specific performance in the form of court declaration of a FRAND rate without any obligation by Apple to accept the rate would not prevent Motorola from suing Apple for patent infringement and requesting injunctive relief. In other words, if Apple refuses to be bound by the rate determined by the court, Motorola could continue to sue Apple for patent infringement and request injunctive relief.

The second problem is that Apple has provided no reason why its injuries would not be remedied by an award of money damages.

In a further attempt to downplay RF standards, the letter claims:

one recent study found that a typical laptop contains over 250 technical interoperability standards - with 75% of these being developed under FRAND terms, and only 23% under Royalty Free terms.

But when we look at the study itself, this is what we find:

we created a set of broad categories - display, graphics, sound, storage, BIOS, input device, processor, power, file system, networking, wireless, I/O ports, memory, software, codecs, content protection, security and “other” - and sought relevant standards.

As this makes clear, those "250 technical interoperability standards" were mostly about hardware interoperability. Of the purely software standards a far greater proportion were in fact made available under RF terms. Even more interesting, those RF-licensed standards included many of the absolutely core ones like HTML5, HTTP and HTTPS.