Court between Apple and Motorola did not take place

So it turns out that Apple is often embroiled in litigation related to patent infringement. In most cases, the company from Cupertino acts prosecutor. However, in recent history with Motorola Mobility problem is not even in the patent infringement, but rather the inability of the two manufacturers to find common ground in the future cooperation.

It is known that Motorola owned patents communication standards such as UMTS, GPRS, GSM and 802.11. The dispute between the companies went out over the inability of potential partners to determine the cost of the license for the use of these standards. Namely, Apple strongly demanded from the court to decide in its favor and to determine the license fee of $ 1 for the use of patented technology in each device.

Arguments of the company from Cupertino iron: a license Motorola should follow rules "Fair, reasonable terms of cooperation without discrimination», «fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms », or FRAND. At the same time the management Motorola believes that it is fair to charge a 2.25% of the value of each unit of the patented connection technology used in it. This, according to Apple, and is discriminatory. The company even said that if the decision is made in favor of the Motorola, and the license price exceeds $ 1, it would challenge the ruling.

Hearing on the matter was to be held on Monday at the District Court of Wisconsin. However, District Judge Barbara Crabb (Barbara Crabb) took an unexpected decision. It basically canceled the process, as is suggested that the court should not determine such things as license fees, especially if both parties intend to challenge the decision, it appear it disadvantageous to them.

In addition, during the pre-meeting, Apple and Motorola did not submit reasonable arguments in favor of their demands, and the judge gave both manufacturers the opportunity to convince the court Monday appropriateness of claims and proceedings whole. But none of them do it and could not, therefore, the court was abolished. However, the final decision of the judge is also not yet published.

[via Macworld]