backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by JasonMick.. on Oct 2 at 12:20 PM

Appeals court ruling offers Microsoft a key win in its legal battle against Android

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) appears to have dodged a major bullet in its legal battle against Android operating system maker Google Inc. (GOOG).

I. German Windows Ban Dealt a Deathblow

While most Android OEMs have caved to Microsoft's licensing demands, Google vowed to fight back.  It has been using its $12.5B USD acquisition -- patent-rich Motorola Mobility -- as a key tool in that battle.  

A win would likely free Motorola's fellow Android OEMs from licensing fees, while a loss would mean that Google would be forced to accept that part of the revenue from every Android phone sold go to Microsoft (typically, $10 or more per phone).

Motorola was seemingly on the verge of a major win, thanks to a German court's decision to ban the Xbox 360 and certain versions of Windows for possibly infringing on Motorola's patents.  However, that ban was called into question when U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington Judge James Robart -- a judge in Microsoft's home state -- ordered that it would be illegal for Google to enforce the ban in Germany.

Google on Motorola
A judge has blocked Google from banning Microsoft products in Germany via Motorola.
[Image Source: TechnoBuffalo]
 
Now, a panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has upheld that ruling, commenting, "At bottom, this case is a private dispute under Washington state contract law between two U.S. corporations."

II. Microsoft Can Ban Motorola, but Motorola Can't Ban Microsoft: Fair?

The message is that Google/Motorola cannot fight their war by proxy in Germany, a nation with a reputation for "banning first, asking questions later."

But the ruling also raises certain questions, as it did not prohibit Microsoft from enforcing its own German ban on Motorola's products.  Much like Motorola, Microsoft secured the ban from a German court months ago.  As a result Motorola's Android handset stock in the German nation may soon be taken to disposal locations and destroyed.

While it may seem puzzling how a U.S. court can prevent a German court from banning products, it can effectively do so as Motorola resides in the U.S. and could face fines and other penalties if it refuses to comply.  Thus U.S. courts can in roundabout fashion prevent foreign court rulings, when the ruling is made in favor of a domestic company and the American court opposes it.

Motorola h.264
Motorola's German suit involved two patents covering the h.264 codec. [Image Source: Joker Blog]

The now-defunct German ruling was based on a pair of h.264 patents -- EP0538667, a patent on an "adaptive motion compensation using a plurality of motion compensators" (filed in 1992), and EP0615384 a patent on an "adaptive compression of digital video data" (filed in 1994).  As these are standards patents, Motorola may face additional punishments following an antitrust investigation by EU inquisitors regarding FRAND licensing abuses (as Motorola potentially should not have been able to sue with the patents).

Source: NBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory!
By michael2k on 10/1/2012 2:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
H.264 patents are covered by FRAND and it's been brought up multiple times in multiple cases that injunctions and bans are unsuitable weapons in just a patent battle when you can merely request arbitration to decide license fees.




RE: Fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory!
By kamiller422 on 10/1/2012 2:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
May not be as simple as that...

quote:
How Microsoft can refuse to negotiate and unilaterally decide that an opening offer is "unreasonable" when there is no ruler's edge and it's specifically left to the parties to work out, is the mystery in this picture. Meanwhile, Microsoft's using the Motorola patents and paying nothing to Motorola. Not one penny. Not one counteroffer that I know of.

It wants the courts to decide what is a fair price, which isn't the ITU procedure as I'm reading it, and it wants Motorola to be toothless in the face of a user of the patents who simply won't pay and won't even negotiate. And it wants the friendly local home court in Washington State to set the price for the whole world.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=201209301...


By KPOM1 on 10/1/2012 3:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
The ITU doesn't establish procedures for granting licenses, since that's a matter of local law. It just requires members whose patented technology gets incorporated into standards to license those patents on FRAND terms.

It's in the jurisdiction of federal court because Motorola Mobility and Microsoft are in different states.


By michael2k on 10/1/2012 3:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
I never said it was simple, I only said that was what multiple jurisdictions have been trending towards in multiple countries and in multiple cases.

Motorola is particularly toothless here, especially if Microsoft has already been grandfathered in as an MPEG-LA member. Microsoft is both a licensor and licensee of the H.264 patents so any claims Motorola may have has to go up against MPEG-LA as well as Microsoft.

If Motorola wishes to keep their patents out of the pool, which is their right, then they are also 10 years late given the pool covers members from 2002 forward.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki