Does anyone know how many FRAND patent licences (including cross-licensed ones) are required to sell a functional 3G mobile phone? 500 maybe? If they all required 2.25% of the selling price a manufacturer would have to pay out 1125% of the selling price of the phone in royalties!
[S] No, only Motorola's patents deserve higher royalties, wouldn't be fair for Moto to miss out because others charged too much. [/S]
THAT'll hurt Google (although Apple is already well on its way to become independent from Google).
Any other suggestions beside Yahoo?
Yeah, I was thinking today of email options for a nonprofit I'm working with and Google Apps was my thought, but then, really. For a charity/nonprofit and any other businesses related to sustainability, it's hard to stick with Google.
(Google Apps is free for only US nonprofits)
There's the free Google Apps but they nicely dropped the email account total from 50 to 10. Anything more and you gotta pay for it. We could sign up for the 10 accounts free-version of Google Apps but there's no SLA on that, plus content farming/ads...
I think we've decided on RackSpace for organisation email, and currently using Gantter.com for simple project management.
Was also thinking of Google Docs and I set up something but I think we'll just go with the free Dropbox. Nobody in the org really needs realtime collaboration on documents, just cloud sharing.
I mean 2GB free for Dropbox, how could you go wrong there? I mean, it won't be sensitive documents even, just research, articles, etc. that will be released publicly for free once published online, etc. I'm on the paid Dropbox 50GB and the syncing is superb so far. Incremental, intelligent, etc.
THAT'll hurt Google (although Apple is already well on its way to become independent from Google).
Any other suggestions beside Yahoo?
As for any personal, not-super-critical email, just roll with iCloud. Anything more? Get your own domain and get something like Rackspace for $2 a month per email account.
I really wish Apple would make a search engine and some decent maps so I could vote with my feet and not use Google's products.
I have stopped using Google for a year or so. I find Yahoo to be a reasonable substitute. No matter how much better Google does search, their evil behavior is unmistakable.
(A) it is not just Microsoft, but also Cisco & Apple (and doubtless more companies will add their name) who object the the abusive way Google is misusing FRAND
Um, could we at least get the basic fact that Google isn't doing ANYTHING with FRAND patents currently. It's Motorola that's potentially misusing FRAND patents. Until the Google acquisition of Motorola is final, they are still 2 separate companies carrying out their own separate business activities.
And really, this is the 3rd freaking article this week about this Google letter. And despite the fact that the contents of the letter haven't changed, the tone of the articles mysteriously keeps getting more negative toward Google. Weird how facts apparently change.
Um, could we at least get the basic fact that Google isn't doing ANYTHING with FRAND patents currently. It's Motorola that's potentially misusing FRAND patents. Until the Google acquisition of Motorola is final, they are still 2 separate companies carrying out their own separate business activities.
And really, this is the 3rd freaking article this week about this Google letter. And despite the fact that the contents of the letter haven't changed, the tone of the articles mysteriously keeps getting more negative toward Google. Weird how facts apparently change.
Part of Google's takeover bid specifies quite clearly that they get a say in any legal actions Motorola takes, they added that condition out of fear that Motorola would carry out their pre takeover offer threats of going after other Android OEMs.
Motorola revoked licenses to particular chip manufacturers, who at the time had valid licenses, well after Apple had not only designed those chips into products but had been manufacturing with them for some time.
That judicial decision is especially damning to Motorola. While it only addresses the pre-trial motions, almost everything is going Apple's way. The only thing that didn't was one minor issue that the attorneys didn't properly support. In fact, Motorola comes out looking like idiots from that decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanistheryan
If for any reason Motorola won this lawsuit, wouldn't this just give more leverage to Apple and Microsoft who own a larger amount of patents that are FRAND
No. Apple has very few FRAND patents and I don't believe Microsoft does, either. The big winners would be people like Qualcomm and Motorola, although 'winners' isn't real. If Motorola's numbers were accepted, the existing cell phone market would be dead inside of 2 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Does anyone know how many FRAND patent licences (including cross-licensed ones) are required to sell a functional 3G mobile phone? 500 maybe? If they all required 2.25% of the selling price a manufacturer would have to pay out 1125% of the selling price of the phone in royalties!
Someone cited over 1,000, but I can't verify that. It really doesn't matter. Even if it's only 50, the license fees would be greater than the list price of the handset - which is clearly absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Really starting to hate Google.
I hope facebook eats their lunch in advertising.
Google is going downhill regardless...
They have turned into technology thieves instead of innovators.
Time will tell.
I stopped using Google years ago. It's going to be interesting, though. If Facebook plays their cards right, they could mop up the floor with Google in a few years (although I'm not convinced that Facebook is all that much better). How much time does the average person spend with Google in a day? 10-15 minutes? Maybe. And even a very heavy user might spend an hour - at most. How much time does the average person spend with Facebook? Many people spend hours a day on FB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
The patents are theirs (well, Moto's) so they can do what they want with them. From that point of view I support them. However they should act in their long term self-interest, not short-term.
Face it, this kind of harassment is not going to stop the iPhone. All it will do is make things bitter with Apple (and now Cisco and MS coming in to it). How long until the next big thing comes along and Google needs to make a deal with one of these companies? There is such a thing as competing, playing hardball, fair enough. But there is also such a thing as just being a d*ck.
It is true that the patents belonged to Motorola and they were free to do what they wanted to. However, they chose to license them under FRAND terms via a licensing body. In doing so, they have to follow the agreements they reached and they are not doing so.
That's like selling someone a car and then stealing into their garage at night to take the car for a spin whenever you want. They made a deal, now they need to honor it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
In law a 'public witch hunt' can sometimes have the reverse effect.
'Fair' is very ambiguous non technical term.
Some may think it fair to sell a $200 Windows license to third world workers living on a $ a day.
Actually, 'fair' is defined by the agreement Motorola reached with IEEE. And there are examples of how it is interpreted. When Motorola's demands for licensing one h.264 patent are many times greater than ALL THE REST of the patent pool, it's clearly not fair. When Motorola's demands are such that if everyone else used the same standards, the licensing fees would cost many times the entire cost of the phone, that's not fair.
And your example is ridiculous. Most people who mine diamonds can't afford the Hope Diamond, either. That doesn't mean the price isn't fair or reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Um, could we at least get the basic fact that Google isn't doing ANYTHING with FRAND patents currently. It's Motorola that's potentially misusing FRAND patents. Until the Google acquisition of Motorola is final, they are still 2 separate companies carrying out their own separate business activities.
That's not true. Read the letter that this article is about. Whose logo is on the letter? Who signed it? Google has clearly taken a position on the matter and it is being discussed here.
Um, could we at least get the basic fact that Google isn't doing ANYTHING with FRAND patents currently. It's Motorola that's potentially misusing FRAND patents. Until the Google acquisition of Motorola is final, they are still 2 separate companies carrying out their own separate business activities.
And really, this is the 3rd freaking article this week about this Google letter. And despite the fact that the contents of the letter haven't changed, the tone of the articles mysteriously keeps getting more negative toward Google. Weird how facts apparently change.
it's simply ai posting flamebait for the fanboys/droids to drive its advertising revenue, facts have nothing to do with it
Rather than asking for 2.25 percent royalties of chips that use standards patents, such as a 3G baseband component, Google is clearly stating that any product that incorporates a 3G chip must pay 2.25 percent royalties based on its list price, future that Mueller earlier estimated would amount to $10 per iPhone.
But if Apple takes the phone components outside the phone and puts them in a separate bumper case or slider and only sells iPods, they would presumably only have to pay 2.25% of the bumper cost. Even if the bumper cost $50, they only have to pay Google/Motorola $1. A $10 bumper would amount to 25c in licensing.
Other advantages it has include:
- not being tied to a carrier
- international travel no problem
- carriers/Apple can test reception without using new prototypes
- Apple's products can never be banned from stores based on telecom patents
- much easier to buy as a gift
- easier to upgrade phone and keep the same network
- devices don't have to be designed to ensure good telecom performance, just wifi
- when a faster network standard arrives, upgrade your bumper
But if Apple takes the phone components outside the phone and puts them in a separate bumper case or slider and only sells iPods, they would presumably only have to pay 2.25% of the bumper cost. Even if the bumper cost $50, they only have to pay Google/Motorola $1. A $10 bumper would amount to 25c in licensing.
Other advantages it has include:
- not being tied to a carrier
- international travel no problem
- carriers/Apple can test reception without using new prototypes
- Apple's products can never be banned from stores based on telecom patents
- much easier to buy as a gift
- easier to upgrade phone and keep the same network
- devices don't have to be designed to ensure good telecom performance, just wifi
- when a faster network standard arrives, upgrade your bumper
You realize that Apple themselves proposed that the royalties on a FRAND patent portfolio be tied to a total device price and not simply a component, right? The only difference is Apple wants that device price to be an average price of basic models that use the IP rather than based on their more expensive iPhones. That would of course impact entry models much more than premium ones.
For Apple's exact suggestion, see here under "Common Royalty Base".
You realize that Apple themselves proposed that the royalties on a FRAND patent portfolio be tied to a total device price and not simply a component, right?
I see nothing of the sort in your link. When they refer to "basic communication device" I think they're referring to the baseband chip.
As I saw somewhere else, what Moto is doing is like this...suppose Moto were to own the patent on MP3 audio and Mercedes shipped a car with an audio system that played MP3s. If Moto owned that patent, they would be demanding 2.25% of the retail price of the car. WTF?
You realize that Apple themselves proposed that the royalties on a FRAND patent portfolio be tied to a total device price and not simply a component, right? The only difference is Apple wants that device price to be an average price of basic models that use the IP rather than based on their more expensive iPhones. That would of course impact entry models much more than premium ones.
The point of apple's assertion is that it would provide a basis of the components required to create a functioning device that operates to the licensed standards, so gives more than just chip level cost base, by ensuring there is consideration of the total componentry required to get a phone and data device up and running. this would seem to be a fair basis for an implementation of a standard.
The value add to go from this device to an iPhone has nothing to do with the standards, so why should they be unfairly taxed, or contribute towards the royalties for the standards component of a handset. This is the key point you are missing.
You are damn right that it would impact entry models more than premium ones (as a percentage of sales price) but as a fixed cost component of the phone, this would be a level playing field.
If cheap phones are being sold that purely implement a standard and nothing else it would seem reasonable they are bringing nothing new to the table, and are merely monetizing the standard, so they should pay a higher proportion of their sales price as a royalty to the standards licensees.
This is the beginning of the end for Google..... lots of things are not going their way, but this is going to explode in their face. It's Google against the whole industry, that's not going to work, especially in Europe, not to mention the Far East.
History is repleate with worthless corporate purchases... MOT has been a piece of shit for the last 10 years with old technology that was pioneering in its time, but failed to keep pace.
Just remember the mess they made out of the chips they produced for Apple back in the day, that was the beginning of the end of their technology prowness and after the Razor rage, its been downhill all the way. \ \
So, is this everyone else's interpretation of the letter (by paragraph):
1) We are teh Google. All your Motorola IP are belong to us!
2) Anyone should be able to license our* IP if it's part of a standard, and just because we're buying Motorola, the obligation to pay the "RAND" license fee is still there. (* Oh, and by the way, when we say "our" IP, we only mean the Motorola IP that we're suing other companies over, not anything else Google has, that's off the table.)
3) We're buying Motorola, and yeah, you bet your sweet bippy we're going to charge you ... cough ... "up to" ... cough ... 2.25% of the finished "consumer" product. But, we're nice, we'll offset that 2.25% by the pittance of a royalty fee you're owed if you contribute to the patent pool too. This is SRS BSNS - this letter is irrevocable.
4) Yeah, what we just said. When we say "may charge up to" 2.25%, what we actually mean is "will charge" 2.25%. And we're perfectly happy to negotiate the rate "fairly", on a case-by-case basis, but only if you promise to never sue us, and have never sued us before, and we're not currently in court with you over anything.
5) Oh, and you can pay cash up front too with no royalty fee in place. No really, we won't try to revoke your license later for not paying the 2.25% royalty we've said we want here ... really. By the way, just because it's Moto IP and Google is buying Moto, doesn't mean Google IP will be up for fair licensing though.
6) We can sell the Moto IP any time we want, and you're still stuck with the terms of our highway robbery. Why no, we're not going to milk you then sell the IP to some bottom-feeding patent troll.
7) If you do want to negotiate a deal, that's fine - but then we're going try to suck you dry for using our IP before the agreement is solid (you know who you are), if you don't suck it up and bend over, we're going to sue (you have 30 days to consider it though, we're nice).
8) Really, if you bend over and take it, we won't sue you. And by the way, we're serious about that 2.25% thing. Also, we may hit you with a few other royalty fees if we decide to charge for any other IP we may have in the pool - but don't try to back out, or we'll definitely sue your ass.
9) If we license anything to you, then you'll have to agree not to sue us for abusing your IP.
10) Just recapping everything we've said in the last few paragraphs. And by the way, if we don't think we're getting the best deal (i.e. what most ... ahem ... "fair" to us, or we decide we can squeeze you for more) - we may sue you anyhow. As a matter of fact, all that stuff before only applies if we're not slugging it out in court with you right now - and if you never heard of the IP we're talking about before.
11) We are Google. Motorola is belong to us. Motorola will only do what we say (and by the way, all this stuff is what we say).
12) All this stuff aside, we soooo have our finger on the trigger to sue you. Trust us, we'll litigate you so hard your grandmother will feel it.
13) "Transparency and consistency in licensing" is important, but as per the earlier paragraphs, only if we're talking about Motorola IP that we can get you to pay us for, so we're we're being transparent and telling you that you're consistently going to pay us 2.25% across the board for Moto IP, or we'll spring the lawyers on you. Don't expect that to change, just because Google is buying Motorola. And P.S. "go ahead, publish this letter, we dare you to".
Then you would be wrong. That baseband chip is not a "communications device capable of both voice and data communication" as Apple suggests.
"This common base, as between two negotiating parties, should be no higher than the industry average sales price for a basic communications device that is capable of both voice and data communication."
I have to agree that it can't be only referring to the baseband chip. However, there's lots of wiggle room in there. It sounds like Apple is aiming for the lowest possible number here, even if they have patents in the pool they could be benefiting from. The letter never specifies a finished consumer product. And "sale price" doesn't specify consumer sale price, it could potentially refer to the supplier sale price for the components, sans assembly costs (which obviously would be lower - particularly in Apple's case, what with their high margins).
A "basic communications device" isn't necessarily the finished product, just the sum of the parts that make that functionality possible. Look at it this way, I have an old 1200bps modem and a analog phone - the combined components in those two things meet the criteria specified. Things like casings, screens are out (I used phones that had no screens, for years ), as those have nothing to do with the transmission of data (or voice). RAM or non-volatile storage media is out that's only for saving information, not transmitting/receiving [communicating] it. The A5 isn't a requirement for that specified communications, and the GFX processor on a smartphone is definitely out too, a simple bit of embedded logic will do it for basic communications purposes, and that's way cheaper than a general purpose processor any smartphone will use.
I really wish Apple would make a search engine and some decent maps so I could vote with my feet and not use Google's products.
Google maps leaves a lot to be desired anyway beginning with the (evil) fact that they force you to use flash to even use them on the desktop, when it's clearly not necessary. They are also full of so many errors it's ridiculous. Addresses are often complete nonsense and half the databases that run it are seriously out of date.
Wait until Apple's rival system (fingers crossed) is up and running and all the tech sites start doing comparisons (you know Apple would have done comparative tests before they launch). I would bet that all of a sudden Google maps will look like a poor and very stupid cousin.
As for search engines, despite the geekier types going on about how Google is still better than the rest, for the average person doing typical searches it really makes no difference if you use Google, Bing or DuckDuckGo. Also as Siri has taught us, there are large categories of things that are better looked up on Wolfram/Alpha just as most encyclopaedic questions are really answered by Wikipedia and not Google at all.
I've already dropped Google out of most of my activities. I have to have a presence in Google+ for work, but I don't have to actually use it (or any of their products), so mostly I just don't. I also block all Google services and Google analytics in every browser I use. It's quite easy actually.
Comments
'Fair' is very ambiguous non technical term.
Some may think it fair to sell a $200 Windows license to third world workers living on a $ a day.
Does anyone know how many FRAND patent licences (including cross-licensed ones) are required to sell a functional 3G mobile phone? 500 maybe? If they all required 2.25% of the selling price a manufacturer would have to pay out 1125% of the selling price of the phone in royalties!
[S] No, only Motorola's patents deserve higher royalties, wouldn't be fair for Moto to miss out because others charged too much. [/S]
THAT'll hurt Google (although Apple is already well on its way to become independent from Google).
Any other suggestions beside Yahoo?
Yeah, I was thinking today of email options for a nonprofit I'm working with and Google Apps was my thought, but then, really. For a charity/nonprofit and any other businesses related to sustainability, it's hard to stick with Google.
(Google Apps is free for only US nonprofits)
There's the free Google Apps but they nicely dropped the email account total from 50 to 10. Anything more and you gotta pay for it. We could sign up for the 10 accounts free-version of Google Apps but there's no SLA on that, plus content farming/ads...
I think we've decided on RackSpace for organisation email, and currently using Gantter.com for simple project management.
Was also thinking of Google Docs and I set up something but I think we'll just go with the free Dropbox. Nobody in the org really needs realtime collaboration on documents, just cloud sharing.
I mean 2GB free for Dropbox, how could you go wrong there? I mean, it won't be sensitive documents even, just research, articles, etc. that will be released publicly for free once published online, etc. I'm on the paid Dropbox 50GB and the syncing is superb so far. Incremental, intelligent, etc.
**** Google Docs.
THAT'll hurt Google (although Apple is already well on its way to become independent from Google).
Any other suggestions beside Yahoo?
As for any personal, not-super-critical email, just roll with iCloud. Anything more? Get your own domain and get something like Rackspace for $2 a month per email account.
I really wish Apple would make a search engine and some decent maps so I could vote with my feet and not use Google's products.
I have stopped using Google for a year or so. I find Yahoo to be a reasonable substitute. No matter how much better Google does search, their evil behavior is unmistakable.
(A) it is not just Microsoft, but also Cisco & Apple (and doubtless more companies will add their name) who object the the abusive way Google is misusing FRAND
Um, could we at least get the basic fact that Google isn't doing ANYTHING with FRAND patents currently. It's Motorola that's potentially misusing FRAND patents. Until the Google acquisition of Motorola is final, they are still 2 separate companies carrying out their own separate business activities.
And really, this is the 3rd freaking article this week about this Google letter. And despite the fact that the contents of the letter haven't changed, the tone of the articles mysteriously keeps getting more negative toward Google. Weird how facts apparently change.
Um, could we at least get the basic fact that Google isn't doing ANYTHING with FRAND patents currently. It's Motorola that's potentially misusing FRAND patents. Until the Google acquisition of Motorola is final, they are still 2 separate companies carrying out their own separate business activities.
And really, this is the 3rd freaking article this week about this Google letter. And despite the fact that the contents of the letter haven't changed, the tone of the articles mysteriously keeps getting more negative toward Google. Weird how facts apparently change.
Part of Google's takeover bid specifies quite clearly that they get a say in any legal actions Motorola takes, they added that condition out of fear that Motorola would carry out their pre takeover offer threats of going after other Android OEMs.
Motorola revoked licenses to particular chip manufacturers, who at the time had valid licenses, well after Apple had not only designed those chips into products but had been manufacturing with them for some time.
According to a judgement here:
http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws....doc_num-93.pdf
Moto might be on the losing end of this.
That judicial decision is especially damning to Motorola. While it only addresses the pre-trial motions, almost everything is going Apple's way. The only thing that didn't was one minor issue that the attorneys didn't properly support. In fact, Motorola comes out looking like idiots from that decision.
If for any reason Motorola won this lawsuit, wouldn't this just give more leverage to Apple and Microsoft who own a larger amount of patents that are FRAND
No. Apple has very few FRAND patents and I don't believe Microsoft does, either. The big winners would be people like Qualcomm and Motorola, although 'winners' isn't real. If Motorola's numbers were accepted, the existing cell phone market would be dead inside of 2 months.
Does anyone know how many FRAND patent licences (including cross-licensed ones) are required to sell a functional 3G mobile phone? 500 maybe? If they all required 2.25% of the selling price a manufacturer would have to pay out 1125% of the selling price of the phone in royalties!
Someone cited over 1,000, but I can't verify that. It really doesn't matter. Even if it's only 50, the license fees would be greater than the list price of the handset - which is clearly absurd.
Really starting to hate Google.
I hope facebook eats their lunch in advertising.
Google is going downhill regardless...
They have turned into technology thieves instead of innovators.
Time will tell.
I stopped using Google years ago. It's going to be interesting, though. If Facebook plays their cards right, they could mop up the floor with Google in a few years (although I'm not convinced that Facebook is all that much better). How much time does the average person spend with Google in a day? 10-15 minutes? Maybe. And even a very heavy user might spend an hour - at most. How much time does the average person spend with Facebook? Many people spend hours a day on FB.
The patents are theirs (well, Moto's) so they can do what they want with them. From that point of view I support them. However they should act in their long term self-interest, not short-term.
Face it, this kind of harassment is not going to stop the iPhone. All it will do is make things bitter with Apple (and now Cisco and MS coming in to it). How long until the next big thing comes along and Google needs to make a deal with one of these companies? There is such a thing as competing, playing hardball, fair enough. But there is also such a thing as just being a d*ck.
It is true that the patents belonged to Motorola and they were free to do what they wanted to. However, they chose to license them under FRAND terms via a licensing body. In doing so, they have to follow the agreements they reached and they are not doing so.
That's like selling someone a car and then stealing into their garage at night to take the car for a spin whenever you want. They made a deal, now they need to honor it.
In law a 'public witch hunt' can sometimes have the reverse effect.
'Fair' is very ambiguous non technical term.
Some may think it fair to sell a $200 Windows license to third world workers living on a $ a day.
Actually, 'fair' is defined by the agreement Motorola reached with IEEE. And there are examples of how it is interpreted. When Motorola's demands for licensing one h.264 patent are many times greater than ALL THE REST of the patent pool, it's clearly not fair. When Motorola's demands are such that if everyone else used the same standards, the licensing fees would cost many times the entire cost of the phone, that's not fair.
And your example is ridiculous. Most people who mine diamonds can't afford the Hope Diamond, either. That doesn't mean the price isn't fair or reasonable.
Um, could we at least get the basic fact that Google isn't doing ANYTHING with FRAND patents currently. It's Motorola that's potentially misusing FRAND patents. Until the Google acquisition of Motorola is final, they are still 2 separate companies carrying out their own separate business activities.
That's not true. Read the letter that this article is about. Whose logo is on the letter? Who signed it? Google has clearly taken a position on the matter and it is being discussed here.
Um, could we at least get the basic fact that Google isn't doing ANYTHING with FRAND patents currently. It's Motorola that's potentially misusing FRAND patents. Until the Google acquisition of Motorola is final, they are still 2 separate companies carrying out their own separate business activities.
And really, this is the 3rd freaking article this week about this Google letter. And despite the fact that the contents of the letter haven't changed, the tone of the articles mysteriously keeps getting more negative toward Google. Weird how facts apparently change.
it's simply ai posting flamebait for the fanboys/droids to drive its advertising revenue, facts have nothing to do with it
Rather than asking for 2.25 percent royalties of chips that use standards patents, such as a 3G baseband component, Google is clearly stating that any product that incorporates a 3G chip must pay 2.25 percent royalties based on its list price, future that Mueller earlier estimated would amount to $10 per iPhone.
But if Apple takes the phone components outside the phone and puts them in a separate bumper case or slider and only sells iPods, they would presumably only have to pay 2.25% of the bumper cost. Even if the bumper cost $50, they only have to pay Google/Motorola $1. A $10 bumper would amount to 25c in licensing.
Other advantages it has include:
- not being tied to a carrier
- international travel no problem
- carriers/Apple can test reception without using new prototypes
- Apple's products can never be banned from stores based on telecom patents
- much easier to buy as a gift
- easier to upgrade phone and keep the same network
- devices don't have to be designed to ensure good telecom performance, just wifi
- when a faster network standard arrives, upgrade your bumper
But if Apple takes the phone components outside the phone and puts them in a separate bumper case or slider and only sells iPods, they would presumably only have to pay 2.25% of the bumper cost. Even if the bumper cost $50, they only have to pay Google/Motorola $1. A $10 bumper would amount to 25c in licensing.
Other advantages it has include:
- not being tied to a carrier
- international travel no problem
- carriers/Apple can test reception without using new prototypes
- Apple's products can never be banned from stores based on telecom patents
- much easier to buy as a gift
- easier to upgrade phone and keep the same network
- devices don't have to be designed to ensure good telecom performance, just wifi
- when a faster network standard arrives, upgrade your bumper
You realize that Apple themselves proposed that the royalties on a FRAND patent portfolio be tied to a total device price and not simply a component, right? The only difference is Apple wants that device price to be an average price of basic models that use the IP rather than based on their more expensive iPhones. That would of course impact entry models much more than premium ones.
For Apple's exact suggestion, see here under "Common Royalty Base".
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80899178/1...-ETSI-on-FRAND
Apple doesn't intend to leave too much money on the table when their own patents become part of standards.
You realize that Apple themselves proposed that the royalties on a FRAND patent portfolio be tied to a total device price and not simply a component, right?
I see nothing of the sort in your link. When they refer to "basic communication device" I think they're referring to the baseband chip.
As I saw somewhere else, what Moto is doing is like this...suppose Moto were to own the patent on MP3 audio and Mercedes shipped a car with an audio system that played MP3s. If Moto owned that patent, they would be demanding 2.25% of the retail price of the car. WTF?
THAT'll hurt Google (although Apple is already well on its way to become independent from Google).
Any other suggestions beside Yahoo?
I'm currently using DuckDuckGo (https://duckduckgo.com/). They are almost as fast as Google, but not nearly as annoying with the ads!
You realize that Apple themselves proposed that the royalties on a FRAND patent portfolio be tied to a total device price and not simply a component, right? The only difference is Apple wants that device price to be an average price of basic models that use the IP rather than based on their more expensive iPhones. That would of course impact entry models much more than premium ones.
The point of apple's assertion is that it would provide a basis of the components required to create a functioning device that operates to the licensed standards, so gives more than just chip level cost base, by ensuring there is consideration of the total componentry required to get a phone and data device up and running. this would seem to be a fair basis for an implementation of a standard.
The value add to go from this device to an iPhone has nothing to do with the standards, so why should they be unfairly taxed, or contribute towards the royalties for the standards component of a handset. This is the key point you are missing.
You are damn right that it would impact entry models more than premium ones (as a percentage of sales price) but as a fixed cost component of the phone, this would be a level playing field.
If cheap phones are being sold that purely implement a standard and nothing else it would seem reasonable they are bringing nothing new to the table, and are merely monetizing the standard, so they should pay a higher proportion of their sales price as a royalty to the standards licensees.
I feel like that limiting is significant.
I see nothing of the sort in your link. When they refer to "basic communication device" I think they're referring to the baseband chip.
Then you would be wrong. That baseband chip is not a "communications device capable of both voice and data communication" as Apple suggests.
History is repleate with worthless corporate purchases... MOT has been a piece of shit for the last 10 years with old technology that was pioneering in its time, but failed to keep pace.
Just remember the mess they made out of the chips they produced for Apple back in the day, that was the beginning of the end of their technology prowness and after the Razor rage, its been downhill all the way.
show of hands...who read the letter?
So, is this everyone else's interpretation of the letter (by paragraph):
1) We are teh Google. All your Motorola IP are belong to us!
2) Anyone should be able to license our* IP if it's part of a standard, and just because we're buying Motorola, the obligation to pay the "RAND" license fee is still there. (* Oh, and by the way, when we say "our" IP, we only mean the Motorola IP that we're suing other companies over, not anything else Google has, that's off the table.)
3) We're buying Motorola, and yeah, you bet your sweet bippy we're going to charge you ... cough ... "up to" ... cough ... 2.25% of the finished "consumer" product. But, we're nice, we'll offset that 2.25% by the pittance of a royalty fee you're owed if you contribute to the patent pool too. This is SRS BSNS - this letter is irrevocable.
4) Yeah, what we just said. When we say "may charge up to" 2.25%, what we actually mean is "will charge" 2.25%. And we're perfectly happy to negotiate the rate "fairly", on a case-by-case basis, but only if you promise to never sue us, and have never sued us before, and we're not currently in court with you over anything.
5) Oh, and you can pay cash up front too with no royalty fee in place. No really, we won't try to revoke your license later for not paying the 2.25% royalty we've said we want here ... really. By the way, just because it's Moto IP and Google is buying Moto, doesn't mean Google IP will be up for fair licensing though.
6) We can sell the Moto IP any time we want, and you're still stuck with the terms of our highway robbery. Why no, we're not going to milk you then sell the IP to some bottom-feeding patent troll.
7) If you do want to negotiate a deal, that's fine - but then we're going try to suck you dry for using our IP before the agreement is solid (you know who you are), if you don't suck it up and bend over, we're going to sue (you have 30 days to consider it though, we're nice).
8) Really, if you bend over and take it, we won't sue you. And by the way, we're serious about that 2.25% thing. Also, we may hit you with a few other royalty fees if we decide to charge for any other IP we may have in the pool - but don't try to back out, or we'll definitely sue your ass.
9) If we license anything to you, then you'll have to agree not to sue us for abusing your IP.
10) Just recapping everything we've said in the last few paragraphs. And by the way, if we don't think we're getting the best deal (i.e. what most ... ahem ... "fair" to us, or we decide we can squeeze you for more) - we may sue you anyhow. As a matter of fact, all that stuff before only applies if we're not slugging it out in court with you right now - and if you never heard of the IP we're talking about before.
11) We are Google. Motorola is belong to us. Motorola will only do what we say (and by the way, all this stuff is what we say).
12) All this stuff aside, we soooo have our finger on the trigger to sue you. Trust us, we'll litigate you so hard your grandmother will feel it.
13) "Transparency and consistency in licensing" is important, but as per the earlier paragraphs, only if we're talking about Motorola IP that we can get you to pay us for, so we're we're being transparent and telling you that you're consistently going to pay us 2.25% across the board for Moto IP, or we'll spring the lawyers on you. Don't expect that to change, just because Google is buying Motorola. And P.S. "go ahead, publish this letter, we dare you to".
Then you would be wrong. That baseband chip is not a "communications device capable of both voice and data communication" as Apple suggests.
"This common base, as between two negotiating parties, should be no higher than the industry average sales price for a basic communications device that is capable of both voice and data communication."
I have to agree that it can't be only referring to the baseband chip. However, there's lots of wiggle room in there. It sounds like Apple is aiming for the lowest possible number here, even if they have patents in the pool they could be benefiting from. The letter never specifies a finished consumer product. And "sale price" doesn't specify consumer sale price, it could potentially refer to the supplier sale price for the components, sans assembly costs (which obviously would be lower - particularly in Apple's case, what with their high margins).
A "basic communications device" isn't necessarily the finished product, just the sum of the parts that make that functionality possible. Look at it this way, I have an old 1200bps modem and a analog phone - the combined components in those two things meet the criteria specified. Things like casings, screens are out (I used phones that had no screens, for years
I really wish Apple would make a search engine and some decent maps so I could vote with my feet and not use Google's products.
Google maps leaves a lot to be desired anyway beginning with the (evil) fact that they force you to use flash to even use them on the desktop, when it's clearly not necessary. They are also full of so many errors it's ridiculous. Addresses are often complete nonsense and half the databases that run it are seriously out of date.
Wait until Apple's rival system (fingers crossed) is up and running and all the tech sites start doing comparisons (you know Apple would have done comparative tests before they launch). I would bet that all of a sudden Google maps will look like a poor and very stupid cousin.
As for search engines, despite the geekier types going on about how Google is still better than the rest, for the average person doing typical searches it really makes no difference if you use Google, Bing or DuckDuckGo. Also as Siri has taught us, there are large categories of things that are better looked up on Wolfram/Alpha just as most encyclopaedic questions are really answered by Wikipedia and not Google at all.
I've already dropped Google out of most of my activities. I have to have a presence in Google+ for work, but I don't have to actually use it (or any of their products), so mostly I just don't. I also block all Google services and Google analytics in every browser I use. It's quite easy actually.