From the Judge's order following Apple's declaration that they won't necessarily be held to the court's ruling anyway. (By the way the judge is a she. Figured I'd nip that in the bud)
"Apple’s response was not satisfactory and did not assuage my concerns about determining a FRAND rate that may be used solely as a negotiating tool between the parties...
...In light of these observations, I am prepared to conclude that the court will not “declare” a specific FRAND rate for Motorola’s standards-essential patents. This would mean that, with respect to Apple’s breach of contract claim arising from Motorola’s FRAND commitments, the trial would resolve only the issue whether Motorola’s 2.25% licensing offer and subsequent negotiations complied with its FRAND obligations. However, this leads to an obvious question: what purpose would be served by the court’s declaring that Motorola’s actions constituted a breach of its FRAND contracts? Such a declaration would lead to the same situation as a declaration of a particular FRAND rate; the parties would be sent back to the negotiation table to hammer out the details of a license. Further, although a declaration might be useful for Apple as a defense to a future patent infringement suit brought by Motorola, Apple has not shown at this point that future patent infringement suits are likely or that it would be appropriate to declare that Motorola breached its contracts simply to provide Apple a defense in hypothetical future infringement actions. This leads to the question whether any trial should be held on Apple’s breach of contract claim relating to the FRAND contracts.
Additionally, these observations lead to the question whether a trial should be held regarding Apple’s other claims."
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/4/12 at 5:41am
