US Judge Rules Against German Microsoft Injunction

angry tapir writes "In an unusual case, a U.S. judge has ruled that Motorola cannot enforce an injunction that would prevent Microsoft from selling Windows products in Germany, should a German court issue such an injunction next week. Microsoft asked the judge for the ruling in anticipation of an injunction that a German court is expected to issue related to a patent infringement suit that Motorola filed against Microsoft in Germany. The suit centers primarily on Motorola licenses that have been declared essential to the H.264 video standard. The German injunction is expected on April 17."

Comments

Eh?

[g0tai]

IANAL, so can someone explain to me why a US court thinks it has any effect in Germany? Or is this some kind of 'threat'/'international business' thing that has some legal basis for multinational companies?

Re:Eh?

[buchner.johannes]

The US thinks their jurisdiction is the whole world -- they think copyright, software patents, making laws after something happened rather than before (Common law), screaming out on a marketplace of ideas to determine the best ... is a universal thing and awesome.
But hey, if you're big, you don't need to care to listen.

Re:Eh?

[DarkOx]

Possibly because these are US companies and we have trade agreements.

Re:Eh?

[Lonewolf666]

After reading the article, it seems the US court is ordering Motorola not to use the German legal system to block sales of Windows in Germany. So if Motorola were to do it anyway, I guess German customs would still enforce the injunction, but Motorola mangement in the US would risk punishment.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Motorola were to do it anyway, I guess German customs would still enforce the injunction, but Motorola mangement in the US would risk punishment.

I'm just curious, as to what law Motorola would have broken by pursuing legal action in another country against another US company, that would allow for its management to be punished? And what punishment would that be?
I mean, I didn't even think laws that can punish management existed at all in the US.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brannigans Law.

Re:Eh?

[erroneus]

I tend to think that if Motorola does something in Germany, they will pay the consequences here in the US. Of course the US judge doesn't expect his ruling to have any effect on what happens in Germany. This is the US seeking to control what plaintiffs do in other countries.

Is this an example of the US over-reaching? Oh yeah. But this is about trying to get Motorola, a company with presence in the US, to behave in a fashion which suits the interests of the businesses in the US... or at least the ones who have been contributing the most to government election campaigns.

Things are getting more heated and more dirty. Also, very, very interesting.

Re:Eh?

[DarkDust]

In Germany, if the court grants you an injunction it is not automatically enforced immediately. The winning party needs to explicitly enforce it.

Now a US court decided that the company Motorola may not enforce this injunction should it win it, since there are ongoing actions that have not been decided (like, whether the patent in question is actually invalid). So if Motorola were to enforce this injunction it would have an unfair disadvantage.

So the US court has not interfered with German courts: it only ruled what the company Motorola may do should it win this battle in Germany.

Re:Eh?

[ChunderDownunder]

Hopefully this sets a precedent and I say to the judge, thank you.

International patent agreements are one thing but they should be decided upon within the legal systems of the head office of various corporations or in the country the patent was first filed.

Instead we have patent wars by international proxy, tieing up the various legal systems around the world be it, say, Motorola vs MS in Germany or Apple vs Samsung in Australia.

Re:Eh?

[ChunderDownunder]

What the judge has basically said is sort your shit out in your own country (US) and don't waste the German court's time. Settle the patent dispute in your own country first and negotiate global licensing based on sales per unit in each country.

Currently we have an abuse a dozen or so tech mega-corporations trying out patent-sharing agreements in each country they do business. Extortion failed in 1 country? We'll try it out in the other 195-odd countries throughout the world and we'll find a sympathetic judge.

This isn't about the sovereignty of the German nation, it's international corporations misusing the courts around the world. My point was, US companies suing each other based on US patents and a tit-for-tat dispute in foreign courts.

Re:Eh?

[Richard_at_work]

The judge has definitely overstepped the mark here, in my opinion.

Motorola is seeking a limitation in another jurisdiction, under different rules, not the local jurisdiction under the local rules.

By seeking to prevent Motorola from partaking in legal action in another jurisdiction, the judge has certainly limited Motorolas freedom to operate.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Germany, if the court grants you an injunction it is not automatically enforced immediately. The winning party needs to explicitly enforce it.

Now a US court decided that the company Motorola may not enforce this injunction should it win it, since there are ongoing actions that have not been decided (like, whether the patent in question is actually invalid). So if Motorola were to enforce this injunction it would have an unfair disadvantage.

So the US court has not interfered with German courts: it only ruled what the company Motorola may do should it win this battle in Germany.

So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision ?
God damn the US, if only we could blast that shit country into deep space.

Re:Eh?

[erroneus]

And that is definitely an issue for an appeals court or the supreme court to rule on. But how far does that go? After all, companies and individuals are routinely held to account for operating within the unspoken rules of business in China which is all about bribes and corruption being built right into the culture and expectations of all involved.

So it's not a question of practice, but where the line should be drawn isn't it?

Re:Eh?

[MDillenbeck]

Since I am seeing this same reaction in several threads, I'll do the legwork and post it in each one... From the source article:

The U.S. court should be the one to rule on that issue, Microsoft argued, because Microsoft filed its lawsuit against Motorola over the terms of a licensing deal before Motorola filed its suit in Germany.

However, I do agree - in no way should the US be able to dictate to another country their legal system beyond the standard actions of imposing sanctions and/or embargoes. After all, I don't think anyone would say a state that violates human rights (for example, only certain types of citizens are legally defined as human and the rest are 'livestock' or 'property') should be allowed to operate without consequence. This means petty reasons could be used as justification, for to deny a country a right to apply an embargo or sanction would also be a violation of a state's sovereign rights.

Re:Eh?

[MDillenbeck]

Since I am seeing this same reaction in several threads, I'll do the legwork and post it in each one... From the source article:

The U.S. court should be the one to rule on that issue, Microsoft argued, because Microsoft filed its lawsuit against Motorola over the terms of a licensing deal before Motorola filed its suit in Germany.

Again, I disagree with this viewpoint - it is just an explanation of why they are trying to override German sovereignty

Re:Eh?

[Richard_at_work]

The line should be drawn at illegal practices, in my opinion - however, this particular case has nothing to do with illegal practices.

Motorola are doing something completely legal in both the US and Germany, they are just doing it in German jurisdiction. The US Judge is threatening Motorola in US jurisdiction for something that isn't illegal in either place.

The US Judge is trying to trump the authority of the German judge in his own jurisdiction. Thats overstepping the mark.

Re:Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

>The judge has definitely overstepped the mark here, in my opinion.

Germany uses the Euro these days.

Re:Eh?

[pugugly]

My reading of this is that the German lawsuit was filed after the U.S. lawsuit, expressly because Motorola didn't particularly like the way the U.S. Lawsuit was going, aka Motorola was Forum Shopping after the fact and hoping to use that result to pressure Microsoft to give in the original case.

Practically I don't see that the U.S. Court had any choice but to slap them down hard to discourage that as a tactic. Don't like how your case is going here? Sue in France!

Pug

Re:Eh?

[nschubach]

But what if these are for German Patents?

The judge also pointed out that Motorola's offer included both U.S. and international patents.

Would you want the validity of US patents to be handled by Chinese courts?

Re:Eh?

[Kjella]

There's no court that has jurisdiction of the world. Yes, if we're in an US court we could negotiate a worldwide license to end the legal problem here and in every other jurisdiction, but if we don't reach an agreement then I would think US courts decide for the US, German courts decide for Germany and every other country for itself. I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola could sue in German court over damages caused by the US court by interfering with the German court. The lawyers are going to win, that's for sure.

Re:Eh?

[chrb]

Don't like how your case is going here? Sue in France!

Which is absolutely fine, as any rulings of the French trade courts will only apply in France, not the United States. Contrary to what Microsoft claim, they doesn't need to license any E.U. patents for territories outside of the E.U. - the jurisdiction of E.U. patents ends at the E.U. borders.

Would you be happy if the E.U. courts began to make judgements against Microsoft etc., and expressly said that the jurisdiction of those judgements wasn't just within the E.U., but also covered the U.S.? It is a blatant attempt to extend the jurisdictional territory of national patents onto other nations, which is certainly not allowed under the existing patent treaties. What if Chinese courts decide that they have the jurisdiction to rule on U.S. patent cases?

Re:Eh?

[DJRumpy]

Read the article again. The suit was filed in a US court before Motorola then went to Germany and file a suit for patent infringement with two key FRAND patents in this case (they are asking MS for %2.25 of it's sales price/unit). The judge's position is that Motorola is seeking to use the threat of injunction in Germany to try to force MS to settle for less reasonable terms before the U.S. judge makes his decision. The judge agreed that Motorola was attempting to pre-empt a decision by the U.S. court to their advantage.

The meat of the article is here:

Issuing the order preventing Motorola from enforcing a German injunction caused the least amount of harm, Robart said. If he had allowed Motorola to enforce a German injunction, Microsoft might have needed to remove its Windows products from the German market, or the company could have decided to negotiate a license, but only with the threat of an injunction hanging over its head. Granting Microsoft's request, however, simply requires Motorola to maintain the status quo, he said.

At a hearing on Wednesday, Motorola's lawyer argued that Robart shouldn't interfere in the German case because the actions in the German court will have no impact on any ruling the U.S. judge might make in the future. Should the German court set a licensing rate that the U.S. court later ruled was too high, the U.S. courts could compel Motorola to pay back Microsoft for what it overpaid, said Jess Jenner, a lawyer with Ropes and Gray who represents Motorola.

Robart didn't support that reasoning. "The court is not persuaded by this argument," Robart said.

In addition, Jenner argued that the U.S. could set different rates for different regions of the world.

Motorola has offered Microsoft a worldwide license that would require Microsoft to pay Motorola 2.25 percent of the end-user price of the product. Motorola assumed that that percentage would change and that Microsoft would ask for different rates in different countries, Jenner said. "Parties in a negotiation situation always make an opening offer. Nobody assumes that Microsoft will say 'that's great, where do we send the check,'" he said. Typically, the licensee examines each company's patent holdings in different countries and negotiates different rates in different markets, he said. Motorola has negotiated "dozens" of license agreements like that, he said.

But both Microsoft and the judge noted that Motorola's offer to Microsoft was for a worldwide license. The judge also pointed out that Motorola's offer included both U.S. and international patents. "If Motorola didn't want foreign patents subject to this court it would not have offered them to Microsoft," he said.

Motorola is a global company, and they have vested interests in the U.S.. Given Motorola's apparently willingness to extort companies on F/RAND patents, I don't have much pity for them.

Re:Eh?

[Xest]

That may be so but the point is still this, if a patent case fails in one country, but not in another, then in that country where it hasn't failed, the company making the patent infringement claim has demonstrated that the company being targetted has broken patent law in that particular country.

The judge is now saying "I don't give a fuck about whether an American company breaks the law in another country, I only care if they play by our standards". That's not right, Microsoft has to play by German standards in Germany, not US standards so sorting it out at home basically says "Make a deal in the US to agree to ignore the fact either of you may be breaking the law in Germany". By saying this the judge is again trying to get US companies to not work according to German law. This might sound like no big deal, but what happens when Motorola and Microsoft are forced into a license deal that adheres to US standards then a German only company comes along and similarly infringes on the same patent? That German only company then has to deal with Motorola under only German law and not the potentially more favourable US law on the topic at hand - effectively the German company would be at a distinct disadvantage in brokering a licensing deal compared to Microsoft because the Microsoft deal was forced by a US judge to be carried out under conditions more favourable to Microsoft than the German law would've offered them.

It may seem annoying that companies can go on fishing expeditions but it doesn't matter because each country has it's own laws and so that's precisely what should happen. It's not quite as bad as you make it seem though, as these things only work if the companies in question have a major business prescence in the country in question. It's not all 195 countries then for example, but only those where such law is worth pursuing which is a figure probably no more than 10 to 20 at most. Germany makes sense because it's a country in which Microsoft has one of it's two European headquarters and I believe a decent manufacturing prescence too, certainly my XBox was made in Germany.

Re:Eh?

[fast turtle]

Buzz!!! Wrong Statement on the EU Patents not being enforcable in the United States. Due to Treaties, EU Patents hold the same validity as U.S. Patents do in the United States. Otherwise you are talking the exact same thing that China is being accused of doing; which is not recognizing patents from anywhere other then China. Pot meet Kettle. Simply put, if EU Patents weren't recognized, U.S. Patents wouldn't be recognized either, meaning an all out trade war as companies would steal any and every good idea and patent it in their area after some one else has done the R and D work.

Re:Eh?

[Shompol]

Given Motorola's apparently willingness to extort companies on F/RAND patents, I don't have much pity for them.

Does it say the lawsuit is against Microsoft? The same Microsoft that gets paid $5 for every Android device sold in the world while they had 0 participation in making it? They also made no claims that Android uses any of Microsoft IP. What they said was: pay us or we use our vast patent portfolio and a small army of layers to make you pay. That's called extortion. I say good luck Motorola, go after them in every jurisdiction! Microsoft's lawyers need to be kept busy or they get out of hand and start raping and pillaging.

Re:Eh?

[chrb]

The USPTO disagree:

How do I protect my patent internationally?
Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the requirements of that country.

Re:Eh?

[alexo]

So a German court could give Motorola the right to enforce the injunction, but said right should Motorola win will be inhibited by a US court. How the hell is this not interfering with the German decision?

Because this is a US court regulating the acts of a US company[*] in similar ways that the US regulates the acts of its citizens in other countries.
(Any US citizen wishing to dispute that claim may try to do so by travelling to Spain and having friendly sex with a 13 years old, which is legal under Spanish law.)

[*] According to Wikipedia: Motorola Solutions, Inc. (NYSE: MSI) is an American data communications and telecommunications equipment provider that succeeded Motorola Inc. following the spin-off of the mobile phones division into Motorola Mobility in 2011. The company is headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois, a Chicago suburb.

Re:Eh?

[OWJones]

So the timeline is:

1) Motorola brings up possible patent issues with Microsoft in Germany. For the moment we'll set aside if they're valid/invalid or if this is real or patent trolling. But Motorola said, "Hey, Microsoft, that's ours."

2) Possible phase of negotiations in Germany.

3) Microsoft doesn't like how the negotiations are going, so they sue Motorola in US court.

4) Motorola says "I don't think so" and sues Microsoft in German court for violation of German patent law.

5) US judge says "well Microsoft sued here first, so this is where international jurisdiction should reside."

So the lesson here is: regardless of the country of the dispute, and regardless of the merit of the patents, and regardless of how negotiations are going, and regardless of whether you're the plaintiff or defendant overseas, as long as you sue in US court first you can get a US judge to slam the brakes on any patent issues.

How is that reasonable?

Jurisdiction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh right, forgot about that.

Misleading summary translated

[Anonymous Coward]

The Judge ruled that: Motorola shall not enforce an injunction in Germany.

The Judge did not rule that: a German court can't enforce an injunction in Germany.

Jurisdictions remain intact.

Re:Misleading summary translated

[rioki]

The way this works in Germany is that the court gives you a paper that says can order an injunction and what terms apply (in most cases you must post a bond). You then can take that paper to the Gerichtsvollzieher (marshal / bailiff) which then executes the injunction. The interesting point is that these two steps are independent and you can chose not to execute the injunction.

So the judge ordered Motorola not to execute the injunction. How that is interfering with German sovereignty is a different and debatable point.

It's a fact

[Taco Cowboy]

It's a fact that Germany will never be Germany without the United States of America

Without the United States of America, Germany will be known as "Deutschland"

You certainly don't want that, do you?

Re:It's a fact

[Plammox]

Whoosh, I hope.

Re:It's a fact

[smpoole7]

> Because the USA singlehandedly defeated the Nazis ...

I don't know of very many American historians who believe that we "singlehandedly" defeated the Nazis. But if we hadn't joined WW2, the outcome would very likely have been very different. Not just because of the American military, but because of American *production*. We built (and provided to our allies -- including Russia) megatons of critical supplies.

FWIW, I've never seen an alternate history of WW2 that had a good outcome when America didn't get involved. I realize that's not scientific and it's anything but conclusive, but Turtledove and others have done a ton of research -- including the perusal of military histories and what our allies themselves were saying before America became involved. The UK, for example, would now be a Nazi satellite and its Jews would have been eliminated.

> America was quite late to the party of WW2 ...

I believe you're thinking of WWI. Your argument, while still flawed and simplistic, might have held more weight there. But "WWII" didn't truly become a *world war* until the late 1930s. Plus, we were already providing assistance to UK before we became directly involved -- assistance that Churchill and other leaders publicly stated made all the difference to staying alive until we DID get involved.

Besides, you completely ignore the Pacific theater. Sorry, I know you hate America, and we can debate the details all day long, but virtually every military historian I've ever read does believe that yes, we did in fact make a HUGE difference there.

Hatred of America is understandable. (Being an American, it puzzles me, but that's for another argument. I've never claimed we were perfect -- anything but -- but people like you ignore the good that we do for foreign nations, such as provide aid after a natural disaster, because that doesn't fit in with YOUR preconceptions about how "evil" we are.) But deliberately editing history to feed your hatred is just silly.

And yes, I'm an American, so you may now feel free to dismiss me solely on that basis. Won't change how I feel, though. :)

Re:It's a fact

[smpoole7]

OH, and as for the Russians (or if you're going to be historically accurate, the "Soviets" -- i.e., the Soviet Union): yeah, their military bounced back and probably could have defeated the Nazis by themselves . .. .

IF they had the food. After perestroika and glasnost, a number of former Soviet leaders came forward to publicly state that American supplies during WWII, especially food, made a huge difference. Remember, the Nazis had overrun and had occupied most of "Russia's" food basket. They were starving. That's why, as soon as the USA became involved, Stalin requested two things: (1), that the USA and UK open a second front against Germany ASAP to help take the pressure off of them, and (2), FOOD. Lots and lots of food. Tons of food.

Which we supplied.

This really is off-topic; we were discussing an American judge issuing an injunction in advance of a German court's decision -- but I was specifically addressing the historical inaccuracies in your post. Now I'm off to work.

Re:It's a fact

[Hatta]

Hatred of America is understandable. (Being an American, it puzzles me

As an American, it doesn't puzzle me one bit. It can be summed up in one word, hubris.

Re:It's a fact

[fast turtle]

The one thing that you Limey's can't forgive is us kicking King George out and replacing him with our own leaders, thus beginning the downfall of the British Empire as exemplified by that most famous quote of Kipling "Far Called Our Navies Melt Away" that referred to the collapse of the Emprire.

In regards to the OP topic, Gemany is going to make their decision and damn what this idiot judge has decided because it's a German Court and he has no jurisdiction there nor does the German Judge have jurisdiction here.

Re:It's a fact

[silentcoder]

>but people like you ignore the good that we do for foreign nations, such as provide aid after a natural disaster

And of course, the massive amounts of aid you yourself receive after disasters from other nations don't count ?
Do you even know how much aid the USA received after Katrina ? Not just money but many other types of aid - for example the Dutch sent you a whole bunch of engineers with the kind of particular expertise in water and flood management that their dyke system requires and you didn't have to help fix things.

Sorry, if the best thing you can say in your favor is something every other not-ruled-by-an-evil-dictator country on earth does then you're really nothing special.

On the other hand, after the Japan quake facebook and twitter were filled with Americans complaining about your government sending aid to the Pearl Harbour guilty. Conveniently forgetting that:
1) Japan has been a US ally for decades now
2) A nuclear bomb is probably more than adequate justice for a harbor- you gave them two
3) After Katrina Japan was the single largest monetary benefactor giving aid to YOU in YOUR hour of need.

I don't hate Americans - hell I've been to America, I loved San Francisco. There's a lot of things wrong with your culture and your country but there's a lot of things wrong with all the others too.
I don't think you deserve all the hate you get, but you certainly don't deserve the adoration you want either.

Re:It's a fact

[gbjbaanb]

Hatred of America is understandable. (Being an American, it puzzles me, but that's for another argument. I've never claimed we were perfect -- anything but -- but people like you ignore the good that we do for foreign nations, such as provide aid after a natural disaster, because that doesn't fit in with YOUR preconceptions about how "evil" we are.)

I think it can be summed up by the Monty Python sketch where the PLA are discussing what the Romans have done for them.

Most large empires went in, kicked the hell out of the natives, and then began integrating and "civilising" the natives. Bringing them a better existence in the main in exchange for a different bunch of psycho rulers. When America turns up, you know its mainly to show off military might and then.. well, then you're a bit stumped what to do next. Typically it involves a military presence and sometimes a way of grabbing whatever resources you went in there to get.

Consider Iraq, not exactly a good example of American interventionism! (I heard that, once the guns had stopped shooting, the first thing the committee put in place to rebuild did was.... discuss tax laws). Other interventions always do seem to be about solely protecting American interests with military either in hand or in the background as a threat, and never about improving life. Not that I'm saying the other empires weren't the same selfish ways, but at least they did a much better job at keeping what they'd won by working with the conquered.

I know your hearts are in the right place (I refer to the common American, not the fools you keep electing), but your effectiveness even in providing aid is still somehow screwed up. Just think about how well you managed to help your own countrymen in New Orleans!

Still, as for WW2, it's true the Americans helped out a lot, but consider the reason people are annoyed with you for turning up "late" - the Germans and the Allies were all exhausted from a long war, so when you guys finally agreed to come along (instead of profiteering from selling arms to us), it was practically all over anyway. Oh, and thanks for the war loans you gave us to help us rebuild afterwards... I recall they were paid off in 2006! Cheers for that. I guess politicans can't really say "those greedy bastards have us over a barrel".

Pacific theatre was different - that was pretty much USA v Japan (I note you never mentioned the assistance you got from the allies in places like Burma)

Still, I think if the USA hadn't come over to "win" then the war would have fizzled out to a negotiated peace with no-one able to continue. What we'd have today would be a different Germany, still owning the north european countries it occupied. Possibly we'd be seeing a French fight for independence much like the post-Soviet countries.

I like to blame Hollywood. Its brainwashed you guys to believe you can do no wrong, even its not lying to you to rewrite history in your favour. I like to think of you as a well-meaning giant stumbling about the place, trying to help but.. whoops, stood on something again, so-rry. But then I recall the foreign policy disasters, the secret police state you have, the corporate evil, and the fools you've elected and I think you bring all the hate you get down upon yourselves :)

Re:It's a fact

[ReverendLoki]

So, he's complaining about the number of idiots posting he saw on a site designed to filter out all posts but what you are looking for, on which he looked specifically for idiots posting? Am I reading that correctly?

Sort of like someone I know non Christian) who went to see a production of Jesus Christ Superstar and liked it for the most part, except for all of the crosses in it.

Re:It's a fact

[Grishnakh]

Speak for yourself. I hate them too, but I have no illusions that I'm in some kind of vast majority. Most people here only hate one side of the government (either the Democrats or the Republicans), and blame the other side for all the problems, instead of realizing that the two parties are really one in the same for the most part. Most people happily watch the media too, and get all their information from it (look how many people watch Fox News). And finally, look at how people vote: they vote for the mainstream candidates that the media encourages them to vote for, and they ignore the candidates that the media works hard at obscuring.

Obviously, not all Americans are like this, but a majority certainly are, or else we wouldn't have the people in office that we do.

Re:It's a fact

[smpoole7]

> as Australians we owe a lot to the USA ...

You MORE than made up for it with Kylie Minogue. :)

motorola enforce? stupid judge just wants easy mon

[gl4ss]

if the court judgement comes, would motorola need to enforce it? wouldn't it be the court that enforces it.

but the us judge made this decision just because if he didn't, he would have been unnecessary and would have to judge some real cases that matter but where there isn't as much money involved.

LOL

[WindBourne]

America just dropped further on the anti-corruption list. Looks like another judge has been bought by MS. As I recall earlier, a fool was gripping that MS is unfairly singled out by media. Yet, here is MS getting an American judge to prevent Motorola from exercising their legal rights in Germany. Sick and Twisted that judges can be bought so easily.

RootStrikers.org

Apple

[SlashRAH]

I'm sure that Apple must be keeping a close eye on this case, given their own worldwide legal shenanigans.

Re:Divide and Conquer

[dougisfunny]

Or they can get an injunction granted in Germany preventing the injunction granted in the USA from preventing the injunction granted in Germany.

Re:motorola enforce? stupid judge just wants easy

[pegdhcp]

IANAL: Here (in Turkey) a private entity can neglect to follow required procedures to complete the ruling that grant some king of benefit to them, by not filing the ruling with proper authorities, if the case is a civil law case. For example after a divorce to keep track of alimony payments is the responsibility of receiving party. But this is applicable only to civil cases related to real people.

AFAIK USA is the only country that treats companies as real people. In Turkey and again AFAIK our regulations are compatible with EU rules, if a company neglects to follow up such a rule, responsible managers of said company will face charges of criminal misconduct due to, either neglecting duty for protecting shareholders, or even tax evasion, as such lack of activity would cause a loss to the company hence loss of taxes of government, depending on the mood of prosecutors at the day they were given the file...

Reasons why they can restrict the injunction

[vyvepe]

The US case started before DE case.

Motorlola proposed worldwide 2.25% license fee at the US court (which MS refused ... obviously).

I do not think these are valid. Each country has different laws. There cannot be a common resolution of a dispute pressed by one court over the whole word. In the worst case, (when companies do not come to agreement) they will sue each other in every jurisdiction separately. I think that is OK.

Re:Reasons why they can restrict the injunction

[rmstar]

Another funny thing is that Microsoft fled from Germany for the Netherlands fearing patent issues related to Motorola. This is raising quite a few eyebrows over in the EU already.

Re:Better article

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that Florian Muller is on Microsoft's payroll. Are you as well?

The article explains it

[MDillenbeck]

IANAL, so can someone explain to me why a US court thinks it has any effect in Germany? Or is this some kind of 'threat'/'international business' thing that has some legal basis for multinational companies?

From the source article:

The U.S. court should be the one to rule on that issue, Microsoft argued, because Microsoft filed its lawsuit against Motorola over the terms of a licensing deal before Motorola filed its suit in Germany.

So, basically, they are arguing they have jurisdiction because the dispute originated in the US - and it sounds like the US justice system feels that the Motorola suit was more retaliation against Microsoft for bringing up the case than a preplanned and poorly timed execution.

Personally, however, I believe the US would never tolerate another country making the same claim. Instead, the US would claim sovereign rights and not bow to any court, national or international (yes, the US has refused to recognize the proceedings of the International Criminal Court - showing how much it believes in having other powers meddle in its governance). Thus the US should respect the sovereignty of other nations to manage their own legal proceedings since we have no jurisdiction over Germany.

Re:I read the article...

[Raved Thrad]

I'm sitting here, stunned, at having read the words "Microsoft" and "reasonable" in the same sentence.

Bad Move

[Tom]

Typical MS arrogance. I know german judges, having both worked with them and been to court (usually as the plaintiff) in quite a few business-related cases. The judge in the german case is going to be pissed. MS is either stupid like shit in the "don't piss of the judge" department, or they already see the case in the german court as lost.

FRAND is a Farce

[Bob9113]

This case centers on Motorola's demands for two FRAND (Free, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) patents on H.264. The idea behind FRAND is that it allows the use of patent-encumbered technology in public standards, without the fear of lawsuits hobbling creative and technological advancement. FRAND has been championed within standards bodies by companies like Microsoft and Motorola, who promised that FRAND would be just as easy as disallowing patent-encumbered technology. H.264 has been one of the seminal cases of FRAND, with an enormous showdown at W3C between all the heavyweights. Theora was dropped because they promised this would not happen with H.264.

This case makes it very clear that FRAND is a farce. You can have open technology, which anyone can use, or you can have encumbered technology. Pretending that encumbered technology can work like open technology because a corporation makes a vague promise to be "reasonable" to its competitors is absolute folly.

Re:German court holds US court in contempt of cour

[Rich0]

I can't wait to see it, I can't wait to see a seething German judge issuing an arrest warrant for US judge in contempt.

Other than reducing the vacation travel options for the US judge, this would have no effect.

Alternatively, and somewhat less hilariously, the German judge might just pass the order banning the sale of Windows phones (I believe) and order the authorities to enforce it, leaving Motorola with clean hands in the US court.

At which point MS will complain that they're losing $100M/yr in Germany, and the US court will tell Motorola to write them a check for 3x that.

The only way that the German court has any real power here is if the business done by MS in Germany is much larger than the business done by Motorola in the US. Otherwise any penalty they impose will just be undone on the other side of the ocean.