[citation][nom]jskilnyk[/nom]This is ridiculous. Its like every company is suing each other to try and hurt the other company. What ever happened to just making a better product than the next person.I can almost bet the patient court system has had enough of this kind of thing. I know I would.[/citation]
This is the same thing Chrysler Canada tried to pull in Canada. They cried "the japanese and european auto makers are making better sales than us. Ban their sales".
Obviously their complaints went unheard and obviously Chrysler still can't make their cars better. LOL
So they make royalties on every XBox sold....
So by hurting MS' sales by blocking imports...they're going to make less royalties should the courts rule in their favor, since court rulings usually force the loser to pay for everything even before the settlement.
It sounds like Sanjay already doesn't expect he'll win, and he's just trying to hurt MS on the way out.
Its a stupid request. Normally specific relief, such as an injunction, is only granted if monetary damages won't suffice. In this case, they are suing Microsoft, a company which could easily buy out Motorola in its entirety with cash. As such, liquid damages should be all that the courts would consider.
Of course that's probably why they are trying to go around the court system and attempt to get this done through some idiot government agency which is probably ran by morons, like most of the government.
[citation][nom]Strider-Hiryu_79[/nom]^Well said^This is the same thing Chrysler Canada tried to pull in Canada. They cried "the japanese and european auto makers are making better sales than us. Ban their sales".Obviously their complaints went unheard and obviously Chrysler still can't make their cars better. LOL[/citation]
Not quite the same deal. The foreign auto companies in Japan have been convicted of dumping autos on our side of the pond at even below cost to corner the market, tariff-free (while we pay ridiculous duties to enter their market).
That's a pot-calling-the-kettle-black situation, this round of trying to out-sue each other is why I firmly believe patents should have a five year limit, and must EXACTLY describe a DEVICE being patented. This bull of patenting an "idea" to stick in their back-pocket 'just in case' is ruining the whole inventive concept.
[citation][nom]duk3[/nom]Tariff Act of 1930, how is that even relevant still 80 years later?Well, Motorola may have to try making money off patent lawsuits, I haven't seen anything half-decent from them for quite awhile.[/citation]
Yup, that Act was a flash in the pan and has been amended anyways.