Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AlienQ
Cuz ya would get back...
It doesnt take a genious to figure out this was the wrong battle at the wrong time. Microsoft would have snuffed them out in half the time then retribution would be dealt with for the losses in paying an ACACIA "Liscense" in the aftermath.
|
You are missing something in your analysis.
When the current defendants get a non-infringement verdict, it does not invalidate the patent. INvalidating the patent is a different process, one that the defendants will most likely not attempt.
All of the companies that have licensed with Acacia will be required to continue to pay them licensing. The terms of the contract state IF the patent is found INVALID, then the contract is void.
A non-infringement verdict is not an INVALIDATION of the patent.
So it does make sense to fight the infringement claims, could actually be cheaper in the long run, but certainly more expensive in the short term.
It is a short-term near-sightedness that those that settled with acacia, thinking they got off cheap, will have to continue to pay them royalties until 2011 when the patent expires.
Fight the Short Term!