(Total Views: 202)
Posted On: 11/30/2017 11:56:31 AM
Post# of 82676
My thoughts exactly.
No two lawsuits are the same as far as damages resulting upto the settlement date. The only thing that Centrify may argue is that they want to pay the same royalties (or atleast see proof of what they are about to pay compared to their compitition).
I see 4 problems for Centrify here.
1) Entrust had a countersuit against SFOR. This probably affected the deal. Meaning Damages and royalties may be lower due to Entrust being covered by their own patents. But SFOR and Entrust may have contracts with each other that specify perameters on the use of eachothers patent.
2) Centrify, as far as I know does not have OOBA patents and must pay the piper and lost PTAB request for IPR (this was a tactical mistake that was a killer for Centrify).
3) while Centrify is trying to make the best deal, SFOR is going to shoot for maximum return. If I were Blank Rome I would tell the judge that in free open markets, SFOR has the right to price each company differently as if they were selling each company seperately for the first time. In other words Entrust and Centrify would have NOT been sitting at the same sales meeting for lisencing rights if everything were properly excicuted to begin with.
4) And Entrust may have not been willful intent to infringe, only because they had some sort of patent that had bits and pieces of SFOR's solid patent. Centrify, Duo and Trust wave may have been willful infringement and could command more $.
This is fantastic news, settlements are being worked on with Centrify.
Thanks Z for posting.
Getting very exciting.
ALL IMO.
No two lawsuits are the same as far as damages resulting upto the settlement date. The only thing that Centrify may argue is that they want to pay the same royalties (or atleast see proof of what they are about to pay compared to their compitition).
I see 4 problems for Centrify here.
1) Entrust had a countersuit against SFOR. This probably affected the deal. Meaning Damages and royalties may be lower due to Entrust being covered by their own patents. But SFOR and Entrust may have contracts with each other that specify perameters on the use of eachothers patent.
2) Centrify, as far as I know does not have OOBA patents and must pay the piper and lost PTAB request for IPR (this was a tactical mistake that was a killer for Centrify).
3) while Centrify is trying to make the best deal, SFOR is going to shoot for maximum return. If I were Blank Rome I would tell the judge that in free open markets, SFOR has the right to price each company differently as if they were selling each company seperately for the first time. In other words Entrust and Centrify would have NOT been sitting at the same sales meeting for lisencing rights if everything were properly excicuted to begin with.
4) And Entrust may have not been willful intent to infringe, only because they had some sort of patent that had bits and pieces of SFOR's solid patent. Centrify, Duo and Trust wave may have been willful infringement and could command more $.
This is fantastic news, settlements are being worked on with Centrify.
Thanks Z for posting.
Getting very exciting.
ALL IMO.
(11)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
