Agreed that an injunction is not an easy thing to obtain. However, they do happen, just ask Microsoft. (No, the comparison is NOT apples to apples, but the relevant point is that they are granted, and they do modify corporate behavior.)
"They would have to prove at the beginning of the trial they are going to win..." (To obtain an injunction)
This is just plain not true. In fact, generally speaking, the outcome of the trial is usually decided AFTER the trial is finished. Unless you're in North Korea. That is the point of the trial.
I don't know what the legal standard is to grant an injunction, but it probably has something to with "reasonable man" or "more likely than not", or "clear and present danger", or "substantial economic harm", or something like that. Clearly, the possibility exists. And, as you have so wisely pointed out, anything can happen in court.
Beyond that, who will make a substantial investment while the outcome is undecided and consequences to W-CDMA and the litigants unknown?
Q does not have to worry about any this in terms of building cdma2000. While litigation may be costly and is the least preferred route, it beats the heck out of giving away the keys to the kingdom for some beads and a little whisky. (The " reasonable" 1% royalty you mentioned earlier)
Dave, frankly I'm stunned. My logic seems infallible, and your position utterly indefensible. I can't believe my powers of persuasion are not working on you. The thread has demolished every argument you have brought up, and corrected many misconceptions. Why do you persist? Masochism?
As always, IMHO.
meggs |
