Motorola Refused Ban For Windows, Xbox 360

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
and of course, a US court getting paid to pass more crappy rulings.

color me not shocked.

 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
Hum... US district judge in Seattle (Microsoft's back yard) issues ruling that blocks legal process in Germany. Do you think that will end up good for Microsoft in Germany and EU courts?
 

ddpruitt

Honorable
Jun 4, 2012
1,109
0
11,360
45
[citation][nom]igot1forya[/nom]Remember back when companies used to innovate rather than litigate? No, me neither[/citation]

Sadly I'm old enough to remember when innovation was the key to getting ahead (Windows 1.0 anyone?).
 

scannall

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2012
354
0
18,810
8
[citation][nom]ddpruitt[/nom]Sadly I'm old enough to remember when innovation was the key to getting ahead (Windows 1.0 anyone?).[/citation]

I think you forgot the /s there. Windows 1.0 was dreadful. Nothing more than a DOS overlay, that really didn't work very well. Windows was pretty much a joke until Win 95. And wasn't actually good until Win 98 SE. Which they trashed a little while later with Windows ME. *shudder*
 

Max Collodi

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2010
596
0
19,060
35
[citation][nom]Dangi[/nom]How can an U.S. judge ban a ruling in Germany ??? That's to decide by some german judge[/citation]
It's likely there is some sort of patent agreement between the U.S. and Germany. I don't know this for a fact, however.
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]Max Collodi[/nom]It's likely there is some sort of patent agreement between the U.S. and Germany. I don't know this for a fact, however.[/citation]
There is none. The judge is over-extending its jurisdiction by liberally interpreting contract laws in USA. At this point Motorola can only wait the process to complete and build its appeal case. No matter what this judge rules there is going to be an appeal in to the higher court. This case will not be over any time soon. If you interested about the case and want to read FUD free information about the case go to groklaw.net and avoid paid shills like (Anti)FOSSpatents.
 

deepblue08

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2012
77
1
18,635
0
[citation][nom]scannall[/nom]I think you forgot the /s there. Windows 1.0 was dreadful. Nothing more than a DOS overlay, that really didn't work very well. Windows was pretty much a joke until Win 95. And wasn't actually good until Win 98 SE. Which they trashed a little while later with Windows ME. *shudder*[/citation]

It may be because the company is stationed in the US?
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom] If you interested about the case and want to read FUD free information about the case go to [/citation]
Groklaw.

PS. I wonder why Tom's hardware removed the link?!
 

mousseng

Honorable
Apr 13, 2012
672
0
11,060
48
[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]Groklaw.PS. I wonder why Tom's hardware removed the link?![/citation]
Links posted from the comments section of articles automatically get removed - view the comments on the forum to post links (or edit them back in).
 

Gundam288

Distinguished
Sep 23, 2011
281
0
18,790
2
So does this mean that Motorola Mobility solely owns the H.264 patent(s) or does Motorola Solutions own/co-own them?

This case is kinda confusing since it was started before Motorola split up. So, as to who owns what pattens and some sites are stating it is Motorola Solutions while others are stating it is Motorola Mobility.
 

Miharu

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2007
241
0
18,690
3


I totally agree. It's even more confusing thinking Windows Media part (Windows 7, Windows 8 with Media Center and Xbox 360) already paid for h.264 patients. There are also a cross licensing between Apple and Microsoft. So I'm not sure which patents Motorola try to use... but seem useless to me and surely not for that amount of money...
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]Miharu[/nom]I totally agree. It's even more confusing thinking Windows Media part (Windows 7, Windows 8 with Media Center and Xbox 360) already paid for h.264 patients. There are also a cross licensing between Apple and Microsoft. So I'm not sure which patents Motorola try to use... but seem useless to me and surely not for that amount of money...[/citation]
As far I know all patents are own by Motorola Mobility (now owned by Google). h.264 is very complex standard and is covered by 100+ patents own by many companies including Microsoft. Microsoft is member of MPEG (technical) group and Motorola as well that proposed the h.264 standard. There is other group MPEG LA. It is patent pool that license the patents that cover h.264. Microsoft is member of this group and also buys license from them. How the royalty are split between the members remains secret. Motorola didn't join MPEG LA and several other companies refused to join the patent pool. In this case implementers of h.264 should negotiate patent deal in private with Motorola (now Motorola Mobility whole subsidiary of Google). Until now Motorola Mobility didn't sue anyone for implementing h.264. The only reason why MS was sued is because MS sued Motorola Mobility over Android. Motorola won in Germany, but MS is trying to delay the fall back from German court decision. They come up with new legal theory and now they trying to prove it. Apple had similar case in Wisconsin, but their case got dismissed. Basically it is chess game between big boys. At the end they will split the spoils of the patent game and you the consumer will pay the bill.
 

ELMO_2006

Honorable
Aug 29, 2012
368
0
10,810
19
Sounds like *protectionism* to me even though Google own Motorola.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has stressed that it would be willing to pay a royalty, but not on Motorola's demands.
Does this not yell out, *HEY I STOLE AND NOW I'M CAUGHT BUT WILLING TO PAY*, however the judge will not ban the products that have been listed.

Meanwhile back in the cave, Apple and Samsung have sales ban on each others devices???

Give me a break.
 

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
6
[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]There is none. The judge is over-extending its jurisdiction by liberally interpreting contract laws in USA. At this point Motorola can only wait the process to complete and build its appeal case. No matter what this judge rules there is going to be an appeal in to the higher court. This case will not be over any time soon. If you interested about the case and want to read FUD free information about the case go to and avoid paid shills like (Anti)FOSSpatents.[/citation]

Partly true. Usually legal jurisdiction is based on the defendant. Motorola is suing Microsoft. Microsoft's home jurisdiction is the U.S. As such, US law is what would normally apply in most cases against general business practices for MSFT (which a patent case is). Now, if Motorola's complaint was against something unique and specific to Germany, Germany would likely have the ability to ban MSFT products or what not specifically in Germany. Otherwise, Germany and the US would require negotiations for meeting each other's concerns/interpretation of applicable international law.
 

ericburnby

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2010
636
0
18,980
0
The rest of the owners of H.264 patents license the entire pool of 2,000 or so patents for about $0.50 per device. Motorola wanted $8-15 per device from MS for their handful of less than 50 patents. The sheer arrogance of Motorola to think their few patents are worth so much more than the other 2,000.

And people are defending this company?

And to whoever mentioned Groklaw - they are exactly the same as Foss except they're biased to the other side. If you take their word on anything legal you have no business making fun of people who quote Florian.
 
G

Guest

Guest
This is a little something called revenge, good for Motoroogle.

You know how Microsoft extorts "licensing fees" from Android handset makers because Linux supposedly violates 200-something Microsoft patents that Microsoft refuses to publicly list? Well, that kind of nonsense can go both ways.
 

SAL-e

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2009
383
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]... And to whoever mentioned Groklaw - they are exactly the same as Foss except they're biased to the other side. If you take their word on anything legal you have no business making fun of people who quote Florian.[/citation]

Fact checking:
1. Groklaw was started and still run by very experienced (and retired) paralegal with initials PJ. (Anti)FOSSpatents is run by Florian, who claims to be "Legal/Patents Expert".
2. Florian is only taking interest in cases that he is paid for it and always on the side of the paying client. PJ on the other hand takes interest in cases that are against FOSS and never gets paid for her work.
3. Florian always uses carefully selected quotes often taken out of their context and never provide links to the original documents. Several times he is using unofficial documents past to him by his paying customers. PJ always links to original and official court documents.
4. Florian is in the business of predicting the outcome of the court cases and and always in favor of his clients. (Good example was how he predicted the end of Android in Oracle vs. Google). PJ never predicts what the judge would do and sometime try to explain why judges are making decisions based on applicable law as she understands it.
5. Both site/blogs started around SCO vs Linux saga. And yes Groklaw / PJ has sympathy for FOSS, but so far remains professional and has open commenting section where you can express your opposition if you disagree with her reporting. (Anti)Fosspatents blog don't have comments at all.

So, NO, Groklaw is nothing like (Anti)Fosspatents.
 

bluekoala

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2008
333
0
18,810
8
[citation][nom]scannall[/nom]I think you forgot the /s there. Windows 1.0 was dreadful. Nothing more than a DOS overlay, that really didn't work very well. Windows was pretty much a joke until Win 95. And wasn't actually good until Win 98 SE. Which they trashed a little while later with Windows ME. *shudder*[/citation]
I beg to differ; Microsoft did not achieve mediocrity until Win 2000, when you didn't have to format/re-install every 3 months and the task manager actually did something more than 20% of the time.
XP was quite decent and finally, Win7 finally met my expectations. Not that my expectations are completely unrealistic because I was happy in the days of DOS. It's just if you're going to add features, please don't make them a show stopper.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY