@Steve Todd - Matching claims
I already stated that Motorola have behaved less than perfectly, having said that, if they wish to withdraw licences from 3rd parties, (whilst not something I necessarily agree with) that's between them and the 3rd parties.
This raises the situation where Apple are required to licence things they previously didn't have to. Unfortunately, there is no specific calculation for FRAND, it being based on things such as degrees of importance and other such fuzzy issues, meaning that there is not a specific price noted.
Apple don't like it because they feel Motorola are trying to charge too much, and have appealed to the court for exemption.
Regardless of what else is in the document, as I said before, Apple are still bound to come to an agreement with Motorola over the use of their technology, and to say that it doesn't matter because that's the only claim upheld, or bemoan the fact it was upheld on a technicality is entirely wrong. It is in fact, as far as this discussion goes anyway, the ONLY part of the document which matters.
So yes, for my argument, I would say it entirely matches my claims.