The second half of this article has the order by Judge Crabb,.

The order starts off explaining why she earlier thought she should take up the case, and force Motorola to specific FRAND licensing terms.

Motorola then demanded that Apple agree to the Judge's determination of the specific licensing terms.

When Apple then said they'd only take the licensing terms set by the Judge as an upper-bound, and agree to the licensing terms only if it was under a dollar per phone, the Judge realized that any trial would only serve as a negotiating strategy for Apple setting an upper-bound, and that the subject under trial was far too complex for the Judge to issue a specific performance, and was more amenable to a binding arbitration.

   The court would be resolving all of the issues raised 
   in this case without necessarily bringing the 
   parties any closer to a license agreement.
   In effect, Apple was asking the court to assist it in
   negotiating, not in putting the parties’ dispute to rest.

It's great to read how the Judge modified her thought process as the trial went along [for 18 months], and how Apple's strategy backfired when Motorola demanded that the outcome of the trial be binding on Apple.

For those of you who thought that Motorola has been violating the law on its FRAND obligations this is a reality-check.

The order is a relatively easy read, and quite candid in showing how a Judge would change her thoughts as a case progressed through many stages.

[edit] added Judge's quote