On 2010-11-19 6:07 AM, John Levine wrote:
Go to
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2007cv00216/103383/112/
and read the document. It says that the case is being dismissed
because the parties have settled. It says nothing about why either
party chose to settle.
Having been involved in a fair number of patent suits, I can tell you
it's much more venal.
Certicom: You're infringing our patents.
Sony: They're junk.
Certicom: Prove it. See you in court.
Sony, to their lawyers: How much will this cost?
Lawyers: This case is pretty simple, about $100K/yr for three years.
Sony: Yow!
Sony, to Certicom: If we pay you $100K, will you go away?
Certicom: Deal!
But if Sony paid Certicom, certicom would be crowing from the rooftops,
since such a concession could be used to extract further concessions
from all Sony's competitors.
So more likely what happened is:
Certicom: You're infringing our patents.
Sony: They're junk.
Certicom: Prove it. See you in court.
Sony, to their lawyers: How much will this cost Certicom
Lawyers: Depends. If you are trying to spin it out, perhaps a 100K per
year, for as many years as you like. If you are prepared to ramp up the
action, perhaps ten million a year, for as many years as you like.
Sony to their accountants: How long can Certicom hold out at one
million per year?
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
