I wonder if Samsung and Motorola lawyers know what they are doing. They seem to get beaten on every angle. So far they did terrible job.
Quote:
Mueller noted regarding Motorola Mobility's patents that "yesterday, M-CAM founder and CEO Dr. David Martin simply called them 'crap' on Bloomberg TV," adding, "And the relatively best ones MMI has -- which wasn't discussed on Bloomberg -- are subject to FRAND commitments."
Google know this and this is I think they didn't buy Motorola for patents.
To simplify - in exchange for having their technology included as part of a standard, a company accepts a fair and reasonable payment (licensing fees) in lieu of the suing the offending party. Standards generally mean interoperability. This calculus is well understood by all the major players.
For patents not covered by standards, well, that is where differentiation occurs. What a number of companies have not realized is the true value associated with a superior implementation. That is one of the strengths of the current Apple portfolio.
The problem occurs when your a company whose strength is in the former, not the latter.
I find it funny (and more than a little sad) that everyone is jumping on solipsism for his comment. He's a member who (Largely) sides with apple in a given debate. He makes statements supporting them (even ones just as short) and people agree, even some of the same people questioning him now.
I don't know how anyone could defend Samsung. Apple is designing lots of great mobile technology, and this one company has decided to copy it almost completely. Apple does the R&D, Samsung looks at the Apple products and decides to make the same thing. And then, when Apple calls them of the infringement, they call Apple out for it. No one likes a patent troll, but Apple has clearly been inventing new tech. Samsung clearly is knocking it off. i really hope Apple wins this in court. It would send a clear message to these other companies that they will have to design their own stuff.
I find it funny (and more than a little sad) that everyone is jumping on solipsism for his comment. He's a member who (Largely) sides with apple in a given debate. He makes statements supporting them (even ones just as short) and people agree, even some of the same people questioning him now.
When he and I agree it coincides with my experience at NeXT and Apple with I don't know what his experience or views comes from so chalk it up to a random sample where we'll hit n' miss on issues.
I wonder if Samsung and Motorola lawyers know what they are doing. They seem to get beaten on every angle. So far they did terrible job.
Google know this and this is I think they didn't buy Motorola for patents.
Motorola wins either way they slice it. If Google pulls out they must pay them $3.5 Billion for doing so. If they absorb the merger then MMI investors feel vindicated after a decade plus of terrible management seeing mountains of engineering talent disappear.
The video interview is far more weighty than the article write up here on AI.
I think this is exactly right. Apple is trying to protect its products. These other companies are coming back with patents that have long been part of broadly licensed basic technologies. People are too quick to dismiss anything involving IP these days. There are legitimate, straightforward uses of intellectual property and releasing a highly innovative product only to have it copied is a clear cut example of something the courts should protect against.
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
In light of this, Google acquiring Motorola doesn't make a lot of sense. Either they want to collect some royalties (probably not worth the price paid), they want to make their own devices, or they made a big mistake. Maybe their trial lawyers don't understand patents that cover standards or more likely they really want to make their own device and are just trying to spin it a different way. The big Android companies are HTC, Samsung, and Motorola. HTC and Samsung are having major legal issues... so why not buy Motorola and go it alone? Maybe Google decided that ad royalties isn't enough to sustain Android...
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
Apple has licensed their technology.
The problem comes when the FRAND holders want to sit back and use their FRAND patents to get every bodies else's successful technology. So lets say HTC licenses Frand at a certain going rate, when apple wants that rate the FRAND holders say "we'll let you license it but we also want the use of your inventions.
Imagine that microsoft gave all oem's a certain rate to install windows, but then tried to use their monopoly to say to say HP we will give you oem rates on windows but we also want the patents on Web OS, otherwise we are going to charge you double on your oem windows license.
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
NO, that is the mistake many people are making. You can sue if someone is not licensing your FRAND patents... No issue there. What you cant do is use the patents as a counter-claim when being sued. All you can do is sue (separately, like Nokia and I think HTC as well). The two disputes can't be joined.
If you could do that, then you wouldn't really be licensing on non-discriminating terms.
The problem comes when the FRAND holders want to sit back and use their FRAND patents to get every bodies else's successful technology. So lets say HTC licenses Frand at a certain going rate, when apple wants that rate the FRAND holders say "we'll let you license it but we also want the use of your inventions.
Imagine that microsoft gave all oem's a certain rate to install windows, but then tried to use their monopoly to say to say HP we will give you oem rates on windows but we also want the patents on Web OS, otherwise we are going to charge you double on your oem windows license.
you have been drinking to much cider.....from your examples...Like what Apple did to AT&T to carry the iPhone? Or like Apple is doing to Intel to continue to carry their chips and not go with their own chips (A5?) in Apple laptops and desktops? In fact OEMs do this all the time.... They use leverage to gain better pricing and position.
The problem comes when the FRAND holders want to sit back and use their FRAND patents to get every bodies else's successful technology. So lets say HTC licenses Frand at a certain going rate, when apple wants that rate the FRAND holders say "we'll let you license it but we also want the use of your inventions.
Imagine that microsoft gave all oem's a certain rate to install windows, but then tried to use their monopoly to say to say HP we will give you oem rates on windows but we also want the patents on Web OS, otherwise we are going to charge you double on your oem windows license.
Which may be true.
But look at the playback. Apple sues these other companies for patents and trade dress, some of the patents VERY broad. These companies fire back, and Apple asserts that these companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using patents.
I think that's why solipsism might not buy Apple's position.
It seems to me like this is another point for the "patents are broken" argument. Basically, if you create something SO useful and SO fundamental, you're SOL in the current market, because the really important patents don't give you much in the way of lawsuit protection, let alone an arsenal.
The difference in the case of patents is that companies are legally required to license F/RAND patents for the same fees to any and all interested parties. In the cases you mention that's a physical seller/buyer model which isn't encumbered by the same laws.
NO, that is the mistake many people are making. You can sue if someone is not licensing your FRAND patents... No issue there. What you cant do is use the patents as a counter-claim when being sued. All you can do is sue (separately, like Nokia and I think HTC as well). The two disputes can't be joined.
If you could do that, then you wouldn't really be licensing on non-discriminating terms.
So what you're saying is that the current patent system is weighted to protect trolls and to punish companies that develop fundamentally game changing technology (Wifi, 3G) by making these patents un usable to protect against lawsuits?
Because I think it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. I know I'll have people screaming at me that this isn't related to Apple's patent wars at all, but whatever. I tend to agree that it's a bit disingenuous to complain about somebody suing you when you are suing them right back. It pretty much comes across as Apple screaming, "But they started it!!"
Utter nonsense! Claiming something is merely a schoolyard dispute doesn't make it one. Standards organizations are crucial parts of a working technical infrastructure. If companies and organizations agree to F/RAND and change their tune when the industry standard is adopted it undermines the whole process. Why agree to standards if you have good reason to believe agreements will be ignored routinely at future dates? If we are going to continue being saddled with this often destructive patent system, we should at least expect players to be held to the agreements they make in the standards process. Otherwise more chaos will result.
The contrast between Nokia on the one hand and Motorola/Samsung on the other should help clarify the issue to unbiased observers.
But look at the playback. Apple sues these other companies for patents and trade dress, some of the patents VERY broad. These companies fire back, and Apple asserts that these companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using patents.
I think that's why solipsism might not buy Apple's position.
It seems to me like this is another point for the "patents are broken" argument. Basically, if you create something SO useful and SO fundamental, you're SOL in the current market, because the really important patents don't give you much in the way of lawsuit protection, let alone an arsenal.
It seems all you did was reading the title and the comments. Apple is not saying "companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using patents.". Apple is saying "companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using FRAND patents.". What Apple is saying is that Samsung sued without even making a FRAND offer.
I suggest you read Mueller original article. AI missed the critical and most important part of this whole thing.
It seems all you did was reading the title and the comments. Apple is not saying "companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using patents.". Apple is saying "companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using FRAND patents.". What Apple is saying is that Samsung sued without even making a FRAND offer.
I suggest you read Mueller original article. AI missed the critical and most important part of this whole thing.
I'd prefer not to read any more Mueller than I already have to.
I know Apple is asserting their claims based on Frand patents held by the other companies. What I'm saying is that this just further proves that the system is messed up because it means that if you develop something SO groundbreaking, it becomes useless when someone wants to sue you over a glass slab.
I'd prefer not to read any more Mueller than I already have to.
I know Apple is asserting their claims based on Frand patents held by the other companies. What I'm saying is that this just further proves that the system is messed up because it means that if you develop something SO groundbreaking, it becomes useless when someone wants to sue you over a glass slab.
Then maybe Samsung and Motorola shouldn't have declared their patents essential to the industry standard. Once you do that you give up a lot but you are guaranteed to collect a fee. You can't double dip (Seinfeld joke).
Then maybe Samsung and Motorola shouldn't have declared their patents essential to the industry standard. Once you do that you give up a lot but you are guaranteed to collect a fee. You can't double dip.
Ok then, so you're agreeing with me. The current patent system PUNISHES you for creating truly game-changing technology. Because you either make it impotent by going the Frand route, or you hold it to yourself and slow down innovation for decades so that you can use this technology as a weapon to protect yourself from lawsuits.
Comments
Mueller noted regarding Motorola Mobility's patents that "yesterday, M-CAM founder and CEO Dr. David Martin simply called them 'crap' on Bloomberg TV," adding, "And the relatively best ones MMI has -- which wasn't discussed on Bloomberg -- are subject to FRAND commitments."
Google know this and this is I think they didn't buy Motorola for patents.
To simplify - in exchange for having their technology included as part of a standard, a company accepts a fair and reasonable payment (licensing fees) in lieu of the suing the offending party. Standards generally mean interoperability. This calculus is well understood by all the major players.
For patents not covered by standards, well, that is where differentiation occurs. What a number of companies have not realized is the true value associated with a superior implementation. That is one of the strengths of the current Apple portfolio.
The problem occurs when your a company whose strength is in the former, not the latter.
I find it funny (and more than a little sad) that everyone is jumping on solipsism for his comment. He's a member who (Largely) sides with apple in a given debate. He makes statements supporting them (even ones just as short) and people agree, even some of the same people questioning him now.
When he and I agree it coincides with my experience at NeXT and Apple with I don't know what his experience or views comes from so chalk it up to a random sample where we'll hit n' miss on issues.
I wonder if Samsung and Motorola lawyers know what they are doing. They seem to get beaten on every angle. So far they did terrible job.
Google know this and this is I think they didn't buy Motorola for patents.
Motorola wins either way they slice it. If Google pulls out they must pay them $3.5 Billion for doing so. If they absorb the merger then MMI investors feel vindicated after a decade plus of terrible management seeing mountains of engineering talent disappear.
The video interview is far more weighty than the article write up here on AI.
I think this is exactly right. Apple is trying to protect its products. These other companies are coming back with patents that have long been part of broadly licensed basic technologies. People are too quick to dismiss anything involving IP these days. There are legitimate, straightforward uses of intellectual property and releasing a highly innovative product only to have it copied is a clear cut example of something the courts should protect against.
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
Exactly...Apple started suing everyone then complains when companies start building their patent portfolios to protect against being sued.....
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
Apple has licensed their technology.
The problem comes when the FRAND holders want to sit back and use their FRAND patents to get every bodies else's successful technology. So lets say HTC licenses Frand at a certain going rate, when apple wants that rate the FRAND holders say "we'll let you license it but we also want the use of your inventions.
Imagine that microsoft gave all oem's a certain rate to install windows, but then tried to use their monopoly to say to say HP we will give you oem rates on windows but we also want the patents on Web OS, otherwise we are going to charge you double on your oem windows license.
So apple shouldn't pay for fundamental technology, but they can sue the pants off of someone because they got a trade dress for a black slab?
NO, that is the mistake many people are making. You can sue if someone is not licensing your FRAND patents... No issue there. What you cant do is use the patents as a counter-claim when being sued. All you can do is sue (separately, like Nokia and I think HTC as well). The two disputes can't be joined.
If you could do that, then you wouldn't really be licensing on non-discriminating terms.
Apple has licensed their technology.
The problem comes when the FRAND holders want to sit back and use their FRAND patents to get every bodies else's successful technology. So lets say HTC licenses Frand at a certain going rate, when apple wants that rate the FRAND holders say "we'll let you license it but we also want the use of your inventions.
Imagine that microsoft gave all oem's a certain rate to install windows, but then tried to use their monopoly to say to say HP we will give you oem rates on windows but we also want the patents on Web OS, otherwise we are going to charge you double on your oem windows license.
you have been drinking to much cider.....from your examples...Like what Apple did to AT&T to carry the iPhone? Or like Apple is doing to Intel to continue to carry their chips and not go with their own chips (A5?) in Apple laptops and desktops? In fact OEMs do this all the time.... They use leverage to gain better pricing and position.
Apple has licensed their technology.
The problem comes when the FRAND holders want to sit back and use their FRAND patents to get every bodies else's successful technology. So lets say HTC licenses Frand at a certain going rate, when apple wants that rate the FRAND holders say "we'll let you license it but we also want the use of your inventions.
Imagine that microsoft gave all oem's a certain rate to install windows, but then tried to use their monopoly to say to say HP we will give you oem rates on windows but we also want the patents on Web OS, otherwise we are going to charge you double on your oem windows license.
Which may be true.
But look at the playback. Apple sues these other companies for patents and trade dress, some of the patents VERY broad. These companies fire back, and Apple asserts that these companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using patents.
I think that's why solipsism might not buy Apple's position.
It seems to me like this is another point for the "patents are broken" argument. Basically, if you create something SO useful and SO fundamental, you're SOL in the current market, because the really important patents don't give you much in the way of lawsuit protection, let alone an arsenal.
NO, that is the mistake many people are making. You can sue if someone is not licensing your FRAND patents... No issue there. What you cant do is use the patents as a counter-claim when being sued. All you can do is sue (separately, like Nokia and I think HTC as well). The two disputes can't be joined.
If you could do that, then you wouldn't really be licensing on non-discriminating terms.
So what you're saying is that the current patent system is weighted to protect trolls and to punish companies that develop fundamentally game changing technology (Wifi, 3G) by making these patents un usable to protect against lawsuits?
Because I think it's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. I know I'll have people screaming at me that this isn't related to Apple's patent wars at all, but whatever. I tend to agree that it's a bit disingenuous to complain about somebody suing you when you are suing them right back. It pretty much comes across as Apple screaming, "But they started it!!"
Utter nonsense! Claiming something is merely a schoolyard dispute doesn't make it one. Standards organizations are crucial parts of a working technical infrastructure. If companies and organizations agree to F/RAND and change their tune when the industry standard is adopted it undermines the whole process. Why agree to standards if you have good reason to believe agreements will be ignored routinely at future dates? If we are going to continue being saddled with this often destructive patent system, we should at least expect players to be held to the agreements they make in the standards process. Otherwise more chaos will result.
The contrast between Nokia on the one hand and Motorola/Samsung on the other should help clarify the issue to unbiased observers.
Which may be true.
But look at the playback. Apple sues these other companies for patents and trade dress, some of the patents VERY broad. These companies fire back, and Apple asserts that these companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using patents.
I think that's why solipsism might not buy Apple's position.
It seems to me like this is another point for the "patents are broken" argument. Basically, if you create something SO useful and SO fundamental, you're SOL in the current market, because the really important patents don't give you much in the way of lawsuit protection, let alone an arsenal.
It seems all you did was reading the title and the comments. Apple is not saying "companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using patents.". Apple is saying "companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using FRAND patents.". What Apple is saying is that Samsung sued without even making a FRAND offer.
I suggest you read Mueller original article. AI missed the critical and most important part of this whole thing.
It seems all you did was reading the title and the comments. Apple is not saying "companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using patents.". Apple is saying "companies are trying to lock competitors out of markets using FRAND patents.". What Apple is saying is that Samsung sued without even making a FRAND offer.
I suggest you read Mueller original article. AI missed the critical and most important part of this whole thing.
I'd prefer not to read any more Mueller than I already have to.
I know Apple is asserting their claims based on Frand patents held by the other companies. What I'm saying is that this just further proves that the system is messed up because it means that if you develop something SO groundbreaking, it becomes useless when someone wants to sue you over a glass slab.
I'd prefer not to read any more Mueller than I already have to.
I know Apple is asserting their claims based on Frand patents held by the other companies. What I'm saying is that this just further proves that the system is messed up because it means that if you develop something SO groundbreaking, it becomes useless when someone wants to sue you over a glass slab.
Then maybe Samsung and Motorola shouldn't have declared their patents essential to the industry standard. Once you do that you give up a lot but you are guaranteed to collect a fee. You can't double dip (Seinfeld joke).
Then maybe Samsung and Motorola shouldn't have declared their patents essential to the industry standard. Once you do that you give up a lot but you are guaranteed to collect a fee. You can't double dip.
Ok then, so you're agreeing with me. The current patent system PUNISHES you for creating truly game-changing technology. Because you either make it impotent by going the Frand route, or you hold it to yourself and slow down innovation for decades so that you can use this technology as a weapon to protect yourself from lawsuits.