Over the last several days, a lot of ink (and pixels?) have been spilled about Judge James L. Robart’s April 25 Microsoft v. Motorola RAND royalty-setting opinion.  Here at the Essential Patent Blog, we’ve done an initial dive into Judge Robart’s opinion [LINK], posted a table showing his modified Georgia-Pacific analysis [LINK], and also prepared a handy annotated copy of the 207-page order [LINK].  But many others, of course, have their own takes on Judge Robart’s groundbreaking opinion — below is a list of some of the more interesting ones that we’ve come across:

  • Groklaw has two good posts on the case.  One is an initial reaction to the judge’s order.  The second post goes into greater detail regarding the opinion, and also has a very helpful plain text version of the entire order (along with some general background on standards generally for the uninitiated).
  • At Patently-O, Prof. Jorge Contreras from American University’s Washington College of Law gives a brief report on the order — “SO THAT’S WHAT ‘RAND’ MEANS?
  • Patent Progress‘s Matt Schruers gives us his observations on Judge Robart “crossing the RAND rubicon.
  • FOSS PatentsFlorian Mueller gleefully writes that at the RAND rate set by Judge Robart, it would take Google almost 7,000 years to recoup Motorola’s $12.5B purchase price from Microsoft.  He also takes his own closer look at the opinion.
  • At Consortium.org’s Standards Blog, Andy Updegrove ponders “the future of FRAND” in the aftermath of Judge Robart’s ruling.
  • Alison Frankel from Thomson ReutersOn the Case blog expresses concern about the implications of Judge Robart’s ruling, calling it “a call to litigation.

There will no doubt be much more written about this decision as the order continues to be digested and dissected by the legal and business community.  If we see other interesting articles, we will pass them along.