Google loses bid to overturn low-cost patent licenses to Microsoft (Reuters, July 30, 2015)

9th Circuit Opinion (July 30, 2015)

Google loses bid to overturn low-cost patent licenses to Microsoft (Reuters, July 30, 2015)

之前相關的部落格文章

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)

關於Microsoft v. Motorola案，上週美國第九巡迴上訴法院確認了地方法院算出來的，關於H.264與802.11這兩個工業標準相關專利的權利金。如果大家對之前的內容有興趣，請看這裡。

關於 "權利金應如何計算" 這個核心問題，Motorola主要是爭執地院的Robart法官在考量Georgia-Pacific’s factors時，第15個factor分析錯誤：

Motorola’s central RAND-rate merits contention is that Judge Robart’s analysis failed to meet Georgia-Pacific’s factor fifteen criterion, as interpreted and applied by the Federal Circuit, and so constituted error.   (請見Order第31頁的最上面)

我個人的看法是，爭執這個點真的是超級弱。首先，Georgia-Pacific’s factors本來就只是參考用，沒有任何的拘束力，不需要每件案子都全部考量，有時候有幾點甚至不適用。這點聯邦巡迴上訴法院已經至少在去年於Ericsson v. D-Link這個案子裡講過了：

Although we have never described the Georgia-Pacific factors as a talisman for royalty rate calculations, district courts regularly turn to this 15-factor list when fashioning their jury instructions. Indeed, courts often parrot all 15 factors to the jury, even if some of those factors clearly are not relevant to the case at hand....

In a case involving RAND-encumbered patents, many of the Georgia-Pacific factors simply are not relevant; many are even contrary to RAND principles.
(請見Ericsson v. D-Link判決文第47頁)

其次，Georgia-Pacific’s factors的第15點的重點在 "時間"：

15. The amount that a licensor (such as the patentee) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount which a prudent licensee —who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention—would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patentee who was willing to grant a license.

這個時間是所謂的hypothetical negotiation date。它確實可以是一個爭點，但是如果只爭執這個時間點正不正確，意思就是對計算方法的理論架構不爭執。而這非常弱。

從Motorola爭執的點，到第九巡迴上訴法院的判決內容，可以看出Robart法官當年計算權利金的方法，是很有參考價值的。Robart法官當年非常倚靠Comparable License，最後關於H.264的專利權利金，是採用MPEGLA的架構 (因為他覺得這是最接近且合理的Comparable License)，從 "如果Motorola在MPEGLA這個Patent Pool裡，可以分到多少錢" 這個角度出發，算出權利金的。這個方法值得大家在作授權談判時的參考喔。

更多討論內容，請參考Knowledge Repository。相信明眼人應該看的出來，在Knowledge Repository裡，我們根本不把重點放在權利金計算吧。^_^