I'm not sure I ever read such an idiotic and biased article.
As if the German taxpayer would pay for a patent dispute between 2 companies.
The German taxpayer is paying only for the German legal system's weird rules. If they allowed themselves to just put that money in the bank, there would be no cost.
Oh well... Maybe the German law will be changed to stop offering interest on the deposit. This legal dispute should teach them. Why would they even offer interest on it? If it's a mandatory deposit, I don't see the need to sweeten the deal with interest. It sounds more like a bribe, which should be illegal.
AI would not have reported this side of the story with German taxpayers footing the bill if Motorola lost and Apple won, which would make German taxpayers helping Apple.
THAT is what you fail to see.
Therefore, this is one of the prime examples of fanboy news.
I'm an AAPL shareholder just to make things clear for you.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if this is common practice, but per the article, the company is required to make a deposit on the injunction (assuming it's upheld). But by law, the government is required to run the funds WITH interest if the injunction is stayed. I guess I'm surprised the interest isn't due by the party filing the injunction case to begin with?
The interest is intended to compensate the party which filed the injunction in the first place, to make up for the period of time they were required to part with their money, in the event that the injunction is ultimately upheld.
If the party which filed the injunction in the first place was required to pay the interest in the event of the injunction being successfully upheld, then ultimately, they would end up being required to pay interest to ... themselves. Certainly, a nonsense outcome.
If any interest needed to be paid in the event of an injunction being successfully upheld, then the entity which filed the injunction would certainly be the one to whom the interest would be paid -- and therefore, the money to cover that interest would have to come from somebody else -- and there are only two other parties remaining to potentially bear the burden of paying the interest: the government which imposed the order to pay a bond in the first place, or else the other company which lost their bid to have the injunciton overturned.
Oh well... Maybe the German law will be changed to stop offering interest on the deposit. This legal dispute should teach them. Why would they even offer interest on it? If it's a mandatory deposit, I don't see the need to sweeten the deal with interest. It sounds more like a bribe, which should be illegal.
It was only mandatory to set the bond aside, to guarantee that enough money would remain on hand to cover Apple's losses, in the event that Motorola lost its case.
If Motorola is ultimately successful in upholding the injunction, then they are entitled to get that bond back. In the mean time, they will have been deprived of the ability to use the money - which remained their property all along unless their injunction had ultimately failed - as they saw fit. They are certainly entitled to compensation for the period of time during which they were deprived of their ability to earn a return on their own property.
As per post #10 the deposit goes into the main treasury. In effect this reduces the boring the German govt would otherwise do. Many business contracts have similar terms and unless there is a punitive interest rate applied both parties are indifferent to the charge.
<p>The government of Germany (or the state in this instance) is making money off Motorola and everyone else. They have to pay a measly 1% interest to these guys - they'll be getting at least 3% on the money while it's in their care though. They are making millions, not paying millions.</p>
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1
I'm not sure I ever read such an idiotic and biased article.
As if the German taxpayer would pay for a patent dispute between 2 companies.
The German taxpayer is paying only for the German legal system's weird rules. If they allowed themselves to just put that money in the bank, there would be no cost.
Oh well... Maybe the German law will be changed to stop offering interest on the deposit. This legal dispute should teach them. Why would they even offer interest on it? If it's a mandatory deposit, I don't see the need to sweeten the deal with interest. It sounds more like a bribe, which should be illegal.
AI would not have reported this side of the story with German taxpayers footing the bill if Motorola lost and Apple won, which would make German taxpayers helping Apple.
THAT is what you fail to see.
Therefore, this is one of the prime examples of fanboy news.
I'm an AAPL shareholder just to make things clear for you.[/QUOTE]
EXACTLY
Quote:
Originally Posted by dps098
I don't know if this is common practice, but per the article, the company is required to make a deposit on the injunction (assuming it's upheld). But by law, the government is required to run the funds WITH interest if the injunction is stayed. I guess I'm surprised the interest isn't due by the party filing the injunction case to begin with?
The interest is intended to compensate the party which filed the injunction in the first place, to make up for the period of time they were required to part with their money, in the event that the injunction is ultimately upheld.
If the party which filed the injunction in the first place was required to pay the interest in the event of the injunction being successfully upheld, then ultimately, they would end up being required to pay interest to ... themselves. Certainly, a nonsense outcome.
If any interest needed to be paid in the event of an injunction being successfully upheld, then the entity which filed the injunction would certainly be the one to whom the interest would be paid -- and therefore, the money to cover that interest would have to come from somebody else -- and there are only two other parties remaining to potentially bear the burden of paying the interest: the government which imposed the order to pay a bond in the first place, or else the other company which lost their bid to have the injunciton overturned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedGeminiPA
Oh well... Maybe the German law will be changed to stop offering interest on the deposit. This legal dispute should teach them. Why would they even offer interest on it? If it's a mandatory deposit, I don't see the need to sweeten the deal with interest. It sounds more like a bribe, which should be illegal.
It was only mandatory to set the bond aside, to guarantee that enough money would remain on hand to cover Apple's losses, in the event that Motorola lost its case.
If Motorola is ultimately successful in upholding the injunction, then they are entitled to get that bond back. In the mean time, they will have been deprived of the ability to use the money - which remained their property all along unless their injunction had ultimately failed - as they saw fit. They are certainly entitled to compensation for the period of time during which they were deprived of their ability to earn a return on their own property.
As per post #10 the deposit goes into the main treasury. In effect this reduces the boring the German govt would otherwise do. Many business contracts have similar terms and unless there is a punitive interest rate applied both parties are indifferent to the charge.
This is not news worthy, it's not even news.
It sounds more like a bribe, which should be illegal
How would they be getting 3%? Who is paying that?