Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaykf02 | Hacker News Reader

As always, things are more nuanced than "it started before the acquisition". (A previous comment of mine has a bit more detail: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6332432)

Basically, Google had more than a year after the acquisition to settle rather than, not only losing the patent lawsuit, but being convicted for pursuing it in bad faith. I mean, that makes them look pretty darn bad, and I was surprised Google let it happen. But given that tech forums and media has decided not to care about it, I guess it was the right choice for them.

> Please try to stop inventing facts. EFF does this thing for a living, I would think they would not miss something as obvious.

Non sequitur. I have seen the EFF use embellishment when it suits their agenda.

View on HN

But the patent fight was started by Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars so Motorola are using them defensively.

I did mention that MS "cast the first stone" in the comment I linked. However, if you look deeper, Motorola had started with the outrageous demands (which they got convicted for) even earlier, and MS sued preemptively. They definitely sued first, but when a lawsuit is inevitable, it's tactically better to sue first, because e.g. you can choose a more favorable jurisdiction etc.

So if the demands were so outrageous that they got fined millions for it, can you still say they were using them "defensively"?

Let's get some things straight, so at least we can have an intellectually honest discussion.

First, Motorola's h.264 and 802.11 license demands didn't happen until after Microsoft filed suit[1]. They were asking for a ridiculous rate, but let's get the timing right.

Second, no one was convicted; it was a civil case over breach of contract. No one gets convicted in those.

Finally, it wasn't a statutory fine (and what's with the scare italics?). It was damages -- notably, at half of what Microsoft was asking for -- for legal fees and breach of contract obligations by asking for far more than what was judged "reasonable".

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/court-shreds-powe...

> First, Motorola's h.264 and 802.11 license demands didn't happen until after Microsoft filed suit[1]. They were asking for a ridiculous rate, but let's get the timing right.

You're right. I got the timing wrong because both Microsoft's lawsuit and Motorola's license demand letters happened in the same month (Oct 2010) but Microsoft did sue first. Most coverage just mention the month, so I thought the demand letter went first, in response to which Microsoft sued over patents, then filed a breach of contract suit later. I had to look at the actual ruling to find the specific dates, and yes MS shot first.

> Second, no one was convicted; it was a civil case over breach of contract. No one gets convicted in those.

True; I used "convicted" simply because it is easier. Is there a simple term to use when the court finds in favor of the plaintiff in civil cases?

> Finally, it wasn't a statutory fine

Agreed, again, poor language use on my part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com