The second half of this article has the order by Judge Crabb,.<p>The order starts off explaining why she earlier thought she should take up the case, and force Motorola to specific FRAND licensing terms.<p>Motorola then demanded that Apple agree to the Judge's determination of the specific licensing terms.<p>When Apple then said they'd only take the licensing terms set by the Judge as an upper-bound, and agree to the licensing terms only if it was under a dollar per phone, the Judge realized that any trial would only serve as a negotiating strategy for Apple setting an upper-bound, and that the subject under trial was far too complex for the Judge to issue a specific performance, and was more amenable to a binding arbitration.<p><pre><code> The court would be resolving all of the issues raised
in this case without necessarily bringing the
parties any closer to a license agreement.
In effect, Apple was asking the court to assist it in
negotiating, not in putting the parties’ dispute to rest.
</code></pre>
It's great to read how the Judge modified her thought process as the trial went along [for 18 months], and how Apple's strategy backfired when Motorola demanded that the outcome of the trial be binding on Apple.<p>For those of you who thought that Motorola has been violating the law on its FRAND obligations this is a reality-check.<p>The order is a relatively easy read, and quite candid in showing how a Judge would change her thoughts as a case progressed through many stages.<p>[edit] added Judge's quote
If anything makes the case for the complete abolition of the patent system, then the so called
FRAND patents are it. It's interesting to see how the notion is completely lost on some supporters
of the FRAND patent regime. Their argument is fundamentally the same as the people who reject
the notion of patents to begin with. It typically boils down to "Unfair!". Just much embellished
with useless appeals to emotion that differ not a whit from the arguments made against the patent
system in general. For example: "But how would my <pet company> be allowed to participate in the
market if someone <i></i>OWNS<i></i> this territory!?!one1eleven?". And: "This is not good for the consumer!".<p>Except of course when exactly the same argument is made against the patent system in general.
A lovely little retort to that has become a favorite refuge of the patent supporters:
"You just want to - " -- wait for it -- "STEAL!". Apparently, elementary logic is unavailable to
the so called inventors. Because, believe it or not, an argument has even been made that you're
not an inventor, unless you support the patent system. Even more, an argument has been made that
you're dirty thief... unless you support the patent system.<p>The patent system has outlived its usefulness. Nay, it hasn't been useful since day one. It arrived
stillborn, and its zombie has been haunting the inventors world over ever since it's been exhumed.<p>An impassioned appeal you say? A thousand times yes. The patent system is an unethical social
construct that has been perpetrated upon and abused... against countless honest, fair folks who
want nothing more than to practice the fruits of their labor. Many, many times their labor is
a function of an independent discovery. This is often challenged by patent supporters as impossible.
Their argument boils down to: "You can't invent FFT! Only the patent supporters can!"<p>Last of course, but far from least is the fundamental hypocrisy of this all: if you were to enumerate
everything the patent supporters use to practice their art, you will invariably find their contribution
insignificant, nay, not even visible when placed against the foundational background. They readily
accept locking out entire swaths of science and technology for themselves, without ever acknowledging
the monumental contribution of people... mathematicians, scientists... GIANTS!<p>Those giants, in their generosity and brilliance have made our world better. The patent system, I would
argue, has made our world worse.
Here's my understanding/oversimplification of the history of of this lawsuit.<p>The basis was laid in the Nokia-Apple lawsuit over FRAND patents. During negotiations for the license of Nokia's FRAND patents, Nokia asked for a cross-license to Apple's UI patents instead of money. Apple said no, negotiations fell apart and the matter went to court.<p>In court, both parties lost. Nokia didn't get the cross-license they wanted. Instead, they got a ridiculous amount of money out of Apple.<p>Precedent has now been set that FRAND patents can be worth a ridiculous amount of money. Motorola/Google now also want a ridiculous amount of money for their FRAND patents.<p>My assumption is that what Google really wants is a cross-license, that their demand for ridiculous amounts of money is only a negotiating position. The alternative thesis, that Google has gone over to the dark side, is looking increasingly plausible though.
The most concerning part of all of this is that the concept of patent exhaustion has been weakened.<p>It is going to cause massive distress to the entire electronics industry if you can no longer purchase a component and expect to be indemnified against upstream patent infringement.<p>Will be interesting if CSIRO for example can sue everyone that implements WiFi.