“The single most important part of that ruling is the fact that Apple will be free to raise any objections, without any restrictions, against Motorola’s demands if and when a court will have to determine the appropriate FRAND royalty rate in the future,” Mueller explains. “Assuming for the sake of the argument that it turns out that Motorola’s termination of the Qualcomm agreement with respect to Apple was not allowed (either based on contract law alone, or on contract law in conjunction with antitrust law), the offer to take a license that Motorola’s German litigation and enforcement activities — combined with the very patent-holder-friendly stance of certain German judges — forced Apple to make could result in Motorola ‘double-dipping’ on the iPhone 4S, getting paid by Qualcomm on the one hand and Apple on the other hand, for the very same use of the very same patents.”
“On the basis of this assumption, Motorola would have used the huge leverage that the enforcement of an injunction represents for what would amount to downright extortion. Extortion is the use of illegitimate leverage in order to receive something one isn’t actually entitled to,” Mueller writes, “Just this week, the EU’s antitrust chief, European Commission Vice President Joaquín Almunia, told the European Parliament that “hold-up” by owners of standard-essential patents is not acceptable.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]