Xboxes stay on sale but may cost Microsoft money in Google case
We have a patent governing those pants you're wearing
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Google-owned Motorola won't be granted an injunction against Microsoft's Xbox games console, but only on the grounds that Redmond will cough up the readies if necessary.
Motorola had mooted the injunction in response to Microsoft's suit claiming patent infringements on Android handsets. But a federal judge in Seattle has decided that, given Motorola's wireless patents are FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory), Microsoft can buy a backdated licence if it is found to be infringing.
So an injunction to remove Xbox consoles from the shelves would be entirely inappropriate.
FRAND patents are those accepted into a standard on the condition that the owner agrees to license them out at a fair and reasonable rate.
The decision represents a minor victory for Microsoft in the ongoing war, and it shows that getting a patented technology adopted as part of a standard is a double-edged sword. In times past the news was (almost) all good, but now that patents are being wielded as weapons the FRAND obligations are rendering some of them a little blunt.
Motorola and Microsoft are continuing the good fight; as Ars Technica notes, they have both been busy filing with the (US) International Trade Commission in the hope of having each others' products banned from import.
The court case rumbles on with Motorola's patents covering radio and video compression standards while Microsoft argues that other Android licensees have paid up so Google/Motorola should be paying them too. ®
COMMENTS
Proof Reading
"so if Microsoft looses the ongoing case "
Which case needs to come loose, suitcase, briefcase...
icon: for the Proof Reading
Re: Do not evil
Counter-attack, not attack. It's right there in the second paragraph.
Curious argument
Not sure how para-phrased this report is but it implies that Microsoft's argument has little to do with validity and more to do with how well they bullied smaller companies as in 'other people have paid up so you should too'.
If this really is their case then I really really hope that the judge deals with it appropriately ie a swift kick up the backside and a bit bite out of their wallet
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Cloud based data management
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
