Well here ya go!
I just mentioned compulsory licensing a few posts back. Now TheVerge has published a short snippet of an exchange between Apple counsel and Posner:
Posner: "So would you be asking for an injunction that would give them three months to substitute real-time..."
Apple: "Exactly. We're not asking them to stop selling Android phones, we're asking them to do something that they've said they could easily do. Use their technology, not ours."
Posner: "Would you consider an ongoing royalty as a satisfactory substitute?"
Posner: "Why not?"
Apple: "The law says" that companies should not be subject to compulsory licensing. [Paraphrasing.]
Posner: "That's not what the law says. The law says that it's a type of injunctive relief."
Posner: "You can't just assume that just because someone has a patent, he has deep moral right to exclude everyone else from using it. That's why we have this principle that the equity judge can substitute a compulsory license for an injunction."