Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Microsoft Motorola Xbox 6-6-12

Microsoft Motorola Xbox 6-6-12

Ratings: (0)|Views: 11,688 |Likes:
Published by steven_musil

More info:

Published by: steven_musil on Jun 07, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/12/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122
ORDER- 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTONAT SEATTLEMICROSOFT CORPORATION,Plaintiff,v.MOTOROLA, INC., et al.,Defendants.CASE NO. C10-1823JLRORDERMOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., etal.,Plaintiffs,v.MICROSOFT CORPORATION,Defendant.
Case 2:10-cv-01823-JLR Document 335 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 28
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122
ORDER- 2
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”)motion for summary judgment (“Microsoft’s Motion”) for breach of contract (MicrosoftMot. (Dkt. # 236)), and Defendants Motorola, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc., and GeneralInstrument Corporation’s (collectively, “Motorola”) motion for summary judgment(“Motorola’s Motion”) that Microsoft repudiated its rights to the contract (Motorola Mot.(Dkt. # 231)).
1
The court heard the oral argument of counsel on May 7, 2012, and hasconsidered all pleadings on file, including: (1) Microsoft’s Motion (Microsoft Mot.) andall attachments thereto; (2) Motorola’s response to Microsoft’s Motion (Motorola Resp.(Dkt. # 274)) and all attachments thereto; (3) Microsoft’s reply in support of its motion(Microsoft Reply (Dkt. # 284)) and all attachments thereto; (4) Motorola’s Motion(Motorola Mot.) and all attachments thereto; (5) Microsoft’s opposition to Motorola’sMotion (Microsoft Resp. (Dkt. # 269)) and all attachments thereto; and (6) Motorola’sreply in support of its motion (Motorola Reply (Dkt. # 290)). Being fully advised, thecourt DENIES Microsoft’s Motion (Dkt. # 236) and DENIES Motorola’s Motion (Dkt. #231).
1
While the parties in this action have both filed affirmative claims, because (as explainedherein) Microsoft filed the complaint initiating the instant action, for purposes of this order, thecourt refers to Microsoft as the “plaintiff.”
Case 2:10-cv-01823-JLR Document 335 Filed 06/06/12 Page 2 of 28
 
 12345678910111213141516171819202122
ORDER- 3
II. BACKGROUNDA.
 
The IEEE and the ITU as Standard Setting Organizations
Microsoft and Motorola are both members of the Institute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers (“IEEE”) and the International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”).The IEEE and the ITU, neither of which are parties to the instant dispute, areinternational standards setting organizations. Standards setting organizations play asignificant role in the technology market by allowing companies to agree on commontechnological standards so that all compliant products will work together. Standardslower costs by increasing product manufacturing volume, and they increase pricecompetition by eliminating “switching costs” for consumers who desire to switch fromproducts manufactured by one firm to those manufactured by another.One complication with standards is that it may be necessary to use patentedtechnology in order to practice them. If a patent claims technology selected by astandards setting organization, the patent is called an “essential patent.” Here, Motorolais the owner of numerous patents “essential” to certain standards established by the IEEEand the ITU. (
See
10/21/10 Motorola Offer Ltr. (Dkt. # 79-5); 10/29/10 Motorola OfferLtr. (Dkt. # 79-6) (see list of attachments).) In order to reduce the likelihood that ownersof essential patents will abuse their market power, many standards setting organizations,including the IEEE and the ITU, have adopted rules related to the disclosure andlicensing of essential patents. The policies often require or encourage members of thestandards setting organization to identify patents that are essential to a proposed standardand to agree to license their essential patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory
Case 2:10-cv-01823-JLR Document 335 Filed 06/06/12 Page 3 of 28

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Aliha Malik liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->