Where in the article it is written that. Artcile says "In a hearing on Friday, Apple made clear that it estimates a bond of $2.7 billion per year will cover the losses suffered if Motorola prematurely enforces possible injunctions on iCloud, "
So who is enforcing injunction , Apple or Motorola?
Actually your post is all based on the belief that Apple is suing thereby enforcing injunction and asking Motorola for bond. By this logic definitely Motorola is in big trouble.
And for your financial analysis of making future financial liabilities all applicable to current scenario when one cannot be sure how much years case will prolong ( one, two or ninetty nine), really Kudos!
Give up. At this point, you're making Androiders look foolish.
Apple sued Motorola and Apple is asking the court to make Motorola put up a bond for the potential losses. The above issue - and, particularly, the bond that is being discussed is part of Apple's suit against Motorola.
The cases you are citing are Motorola's countersuit (which involves FRAND technologies and is therefore likely to be settled with Apple simply paying the same license fees as everyone else, anyway).
Sorry, but you're still mistaken Jragosta. This is a case where Moto sued Apple. In German preliminary injunction requests the defendant, Apple, is allowed to ask the plaintiff, Motorola in this case, post a bond covering the potential monetary losses that Apple might suffer if the injunction is granted but later determined that there was no patent infringement.
Don't be so quick to proclaim others wrong. A little bit of checking would have told you what this was all about. I'll get things started for you.
Give up. At this point, you're making Androiders look foolish.
Yeah, I am appearing foolish in my eyes too trying to explain obvious facts so many times to a person who just ignores them. Really Hoped he will understand
If they are obvious then why are you explaining them?
Actually I was pissed off when some one was trying to ignore them.
Anyways that is why I told I am appearing foolish. A person who cannot see who is defendant or who is plaintiff , it was futile for me to convince him otherwise
First Judge definitely will not take Apple's claims on face value and will reduce the amount , say to a 1.5 billion dollar per year ( from 2.7 claimed)
Secondly this would be an yearly amount , say for one year the Motorola will need to furnish bond for 1.5 billion dollar, if case stretches beyond that then it will be 3 billion dollar for next year and so on.
So what is the amount that Motorola needs to pay to make a bond of 1.5 billion dollars as of now. Around 1% of the value, since it would be in the form of bank guarantee.
1.5% of a billion dollar is 15 million dollar.
Not a big deal.
Just a coupld of comments.
1) The $16.2 billion amount is the undiscounted amount; the correct amount should be discounted; however, with interest being low, the discount amount will be close to the undiscounted amount.
2) As for the 1% to 1.5% value, you have to keep in mind that the bank stands really to provide said value (be it $16.2 billion). My point is it may be a 1% - 1.5% fee, but it is STILL a $16.2 billion credit extension.
So what's the realistic takeaway from this? Can someone explain it to me in Star Wars?
Star Wars, I don't know. But here is how I see it:
Motorola (Google) for once has a valid patent (both in Germany and in the US at least) that is not encumbered by FRAND and that covers an essential operation of iCloud. Apple is probably in breach.
The question is how much Apple must pay yearly to operate iCloud, this is a complete unknown and if Google does not want money (as with Apple versus Google/Samsung on the design patents for iPad/iPhone) they can completely block Apple. So, it seems here there is a first real case of Google having something in the Moto portfolio that is very useful in the patent war.
A win for Google/Moto is not 100% certain of course (you never know with courts), so Apple ups the ante for Google/Moto trying to actually block sales of iCloud-aware devices. "Try to stop us and if you loose, you will pay dearly". This is a tactic Samsung could copy in the Apple vs Samsung design patent cases ("block our holiday sales and if we win, we will let you pay dearly") but they haven't so far afaik, maybe because this is specific for Germany. Samsung actually has decent sales, so using this could work for them to put pressure on Apple.
All in all, this one does not look good for Apple. That is, if the original Moto patent on mobile syncing to the cloud stands.
First Judge definitely will not take Apple's claims on face value and will reduce the amount , say to a 1.5 billion dollar per year ( from 2.7 claimed)
Given the number of devices this would affect and how much in sales they would lose if they had to go back and remove iCloud from their line up, the judge might take that number as legit.
But in the end it only matters if Motorola does anything with their win. If their lawyers are worth their fees they will know that Apple is going to appeal any loss. So they will do nothing, other than perhaps have the court order that Apple must keep a full accounting of every iCloud capable device sale and if they ultimately lose get that accounting to Motorola and the courts to decide the damages.
So Apple keeps selling while they appeal and in the end they win and they have lost nothing and Motorola owes them nothing of that money. Or they lose and pay according.
BUT if Motorola pulls the dumb move of getting an injunction against those products, cutting off sales etc and then loses, then they have to pay Apple for the loss
Something which Apple had to agree to do in Germany (or was it the Netherlands) to get an temp injunction against Samsung.
1) The $16.2 billion amount is the undiscounted amount; the correct amount should be discounted; however, with interest being low, the discount amount will be close to the undiscounted amount.
Not necessarily. The discount rate is a function of not only the interest rate, but also the market risk premium (MRP).
There is considerable evidence that the MRP is higher now, compensating (whether exactly, more, or less is, however, not clear) for the lower interest rates.
No. If Motorola wins, then they haven't infringed and Apple doesn't have to pay anything. Motorola doesn't get an award if they win. They simply avoid having to pay.
Is not Apple the plaintiff, is Motorola. Is Motorola the ones asking for an injunction against Apple products.
If Motorola wins, Apple has to pay damages to them
what was the amount of the actual bond ordered by the court?
". . .preliminarily enforceable against Ireland-based Apple Sales International in exchange for a €100 million ($134 million) bond unless Apple wins a stay" . Not even close to the billions mentioned in this thread.
The injunction was confirmed today with Apple's iPhones and 3G iPads shown in violation of Motorola patents. Baring the Apple request for a delay in enforcement, this puts Apple in a bit of a tight spot in Germany.
Comments
Patents... the next meaningless thing after analysts
Ignorant commentary passed off as insightful - sincere and present danger to the continued success of a society
Where in the article it is written that. Artcile says "In a hearing on Friday, Apple made clear that it estimates a bond of $2.7 billion per year will cover the losses suffered if Motorola prematurely enforces possible injunctions on iCloud, "
So who is enforcing injunction , Apple or Motorola?
Actually your post is all based on the belief that Apple is suing thereby enforcing injunction and asking Motorola for bond. By this logic definitely Motorola is in big trouble.
And for your financial analysis of making future financial liabilities all applicable to current scenario when one cannot be sure how much years case will prolong ( one, two or ninetty nine), really Kudos!
Give up. At this point, you're making Androiders look foolish.
Apple sued Motorola and Apple is asking the court to make Motorola put up a bond for the potential losses. The above issue - and, particularly, the bond that is being discussed is part of Apple's suit against Motorola.
The cases you are citing are Motorola's countersuit (which involves FRAND technologies and is therefore likely to be settled with Apple simply paying the same license fees as everyone else, anyway).
Sorry, but you're still mistaken Jragosta. This is a case where Moto sued Apple. In German preliminary injunction requests the defendant, Apple, is allowed to ask the plaintiff, Motorola in this case, post a bond covering the potential monetary losses that Apple might suffer if the injunction is granted but later determined that there was no patent infringement.
Don't be so quick to proclaim others wrong. A little bit of checking would have told you what this was all about. I'll get things started for you.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...6-billion.html
Give up. At this point, you're making Androiders look foolish.
Yeah, I am appearing foolish in my eyes too trying to explain obvious facts so many times to a person who just ignores them. Really Hoped he will understand
Anyways Good Advice
Yeah, I am appearing foolish in my eyes too trying to explain obvious facts so many times to a person who just ignores them
Good Advice
If they are obvious then why are you explaining them?
If they are obvious then why are you explaining them?
Actually I was pissed off when some one was trying to ignore them.
Anyways that is why I told I am appearing foolish. A person who cannot see who is defendant or who is plaintiff , it was futile for me to convince him otherwise
First Judge definitely will not take Apple's claims on face value and will reduce the amount , say to a 1.5 billion dollar per year ( from 2.7 claimed)
Secondly this would be an yearly amount , say for one year the Motorola will need to furnish bond for 1.5 billion dollar, if case stretches beyond that then it will be 3 billion dollar for next year and so on.
So what is the amount that Motorola needs to pay to make a bond of 1.5 billion dollars as of now. Around 1% of the value, since it would be in the form of bank guarantee.
1.5% of a billion dollar is 15 million dollar.
Not a big deal.
Just a coupld of comments.
1) The $16.2 billion amount is the undiscounted amount; the correct amount should be discounted; however, with interest being low, the discount amount will be close to the undiscounted amount.
2) As for the 1% to 1.5% value, you have to keep in mind that the bank stands really to provide said value (be it $16.2 billion). My point is it may be a 1% - 1.5% fee, but it is STILL a $16.2 billion credit extension.
So what's the realistic takeaway from this? Can someone explain it to me in Star Wars?
Star Wars, I don't know. But here is how I see it:
- Motorola (Google) for once has a valid patent (both in Germany and in the US at least) that is not encumbered by FRAND and that covers an essential operation of iCloud. Apple is probably in breach.
- The question is how much Apple must pay yearly to operate iCloud, this is a complete unknown and if Google does not want money (as with Apple versus Google/Samsung on the design patents for iPad/iPhone) they can completely block Apple. So, it seems here there is a first real case of Google having something in the Moto portfolio that is very useful in the patent war.
- A win for Google/Moto is not 100% certain of course (you never know with courts), so Apple ups the ante for Google/Moto trying to actually block sales of iCloud-aware devices. "Try to stop us and if you loose, you will pay dearly". This is a tactic Samsung could copy in the Apple vs Samsung design patent cases ("block our holiday sales and if we win, we will let you pay dearly") but they haven't so far afaik, maybe because this is specific for Germany. Samsung actually has decent sales, so using this could work for them to put pressure on Apple.
All in all, this one does not look good for Apple. That is, if the original Moto patent on mobile syncing to the cloud stands.First Judge definitely will not take Apple's claims on face value and will reduce the amount , say to a 1.5 billion dollar per year ( from 2.7 claimed)
Given the number of devices this would affect and how much in sales they would lose if they had to go back and remove iCloud from their line up, the judge might take that number as legit.
But in the end it only matters if Motorola does anything with their win. If their lawyers are worth their fees they will know that Apple is going to appeal any loss. So they will do nothing, other than perhaps have the court order that Apple must keep a full accounting of every iCloud capable device sale and if they ultimately lose get that accounting to Motorola and the courts to decide the damages.
So Apple keeps selling while they appeal and in the end they win and they have lost nothing and Motorola owes them nothing of that money. Or they lose and pay according.
BUT if Motorola pulls the dumb move of getting an injunction against those products, cutting off sales etc and then loses, then they have to pay Apple for the loss
Something which Apple had to agree to do in Germany (or was it the Netherlands) to get an temp injunction against Samsung.
1) The $16.2 billion amount is the undiscounted amount; the correct amount should be discounted; however, with interest being low, the discount amount will be close to the undiscounted amount.
Not necessarily. The discount rate is a function of not only the interest rate, but also the market risk premium (MRP).
There is considerable evidence that the MRP is higher now, compensating (whether exactly, more, or less is, however, not clear) for the lower interest rates.
No. If Motorola wins, then they haven't infringed and Apple doesn't have to pay anything. Motorola doesn't get an award if they win. They simply avoid having to pay.
Is not Apple the plaintiff, is Motorola. Is Motorola the ones asking for an injunction against Apple products.
If Motorola wins, Apple has to pay damages to them
". . .preliminarily enforceable against Ireland-based Apple Sales International in exchange for a €100 million ($134 million) bond unless Apple wins a stay" . Not even close to the billions mentioned in this thread.
The injunction was confirmed today with Apple's iPhones and 3G iPads shown in violation of Motorola patents. Baring the Apple request for a delay in enforcement, this puts Apple in a bit of a tight spot in Germany.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...an-patent.html
what was the amount of the actual bond ordered by the court?
Mueller finally wrong? Noooooo