IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.
long time lurker, first time commenter. You dude are the most contrary person I've ever seen, you sir get the "Troll that acts clueless" award for the day.
The specific's including the agreed on royalty percentage may be speculative, but the fact that on-going royalties are being paid based on iPhone sales is not. As for the length of time the agreement will be in place, I've never stated one, nor have I even seen a guess posted by anyone else.
As for whether a significant number of the patents that make the iPhone unique were licensed to Nokia, who knows. Apple would only say it wasn't the majority of them.
Please post a link showing "the fact that on-going royalties are being paid based on iPhone sales", otherwise you are just making stuff up.
long time lurker, first time commenter. You dude are the most contrary person I've ever seen, you sir get the "Troll that acts clueless" award for the day.
If you wish to be a bit more detailed on what part of my post is clueless, I don't mind at all. I'm always open to members views, particularly those I hadn't yet considered. Perhaps you have some insights to share.
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.
But you don't gamble with the FRAND patents though. If it was the other non FRAND stuff I could well understand that, but it's not - this is stuff that you've brought to the table to create a standard with the appropriate bodies.
And the bodies themselves don't want this crap either as it makes them worthless. What's the point of a body that promotes a standard, if the owners of the standards are at each others throats all the time?
But you don't gamble with the FRAND patents though. If it was the other non FRAND stuff I could well understand that, but it's not - this is stuff that you've brought to the table to create a standard with the appropriate bodies.
And the bodies themselves don't want this crap either as it makes them worthless. What's the point of a body that promotes a standard, if the owners of the standards are at each others throats all the time?
I agree that FRAND patents shouldn't be used in this manner. The problem is that they sometimes are and have been in the past. Probably will in the future too. Apparently the groups responsible for over-seeing standards don't have rules in place on how to determine values, define what is reasonable, or even how to divide revenues when several different entities contribute IP. There doesn't appear to be any clear rules on much of this, or what the law requires.
Now throw in the Orange Book rules that German courts use, but no one else (and that Apple has used to their advantage in other cases), and there shouldn't be any surprise that if a company feels it's back is to a wall those FRAND patents become lawsuit fodder and Germany is the ideal place to use them.
I agree that FRAND patents shouldn't be used in this manner. The problem is that they sometimes are and have been in the past. Probably will in the future too. Apparently the groups responsible for over-seeing standards don't have rules in place on how to determine values, define what is reasonable, or even how to divide revenues when several different entities contribute IP. There doesn't appear to be any clear rules on much of this, or what the law requires.
Now throw in the Orange Book rules that German courts use, but no one else (and that Apple has used to their advantage in other cases), and there shouldn't be any surprise that if a company feels it's back is to a wall those FRAND patents become lawsuit fodder and Germany is the ideal place to use them.
I agree, it should be no surprise, but my point is that a company that pulls these stunts (remember that Apple and Microsoft are not suing over FRAND patents) will find itself on the outside rather quickly.
Where does that leave your business when everyone else is kicking you in the nuts because you were a prat a couple of years earlier?
I agree, it should be no surprise, but my point is that a company that pulls these stunts (remember that Apple and Microsoft are not suing over FRAND patents) will find itself on the outside rather quickly.
Where does that leave your business when everyone else is kicking you in the nuts because you were a prat a couple of years earlier?
Microsoft may not be using FRAND patents, but the supposedly "strong" ones it has been bullying Android vendors with may not even be valid. This according to ArsTechnica.
That might be why they've insisted on negotiating in secret, and won't even discuss in detail unless the vendor agrees to a non-disclosure. Microsoft is so big with so much money they can outlast many challengers, throwing lawyers at them until the vendor gives in. Simply telling a company that they're filing suit might be enough to bluff some into agreeing to license patents that may be judged invalid anyway.
To repeat, I don't agree with using FRAND-pledged patents to answer challengers. At the same time I consider MS a well-funded bully trying to make Android too expensive to compete with MS mobile plans, and using bogus patents to do so.
As for Apple, I don't really have too many issues with most of it's IP lawsuits so far, with the exception of their dubious Community Design silliness. Those are just a bit over the top and have as much unfair potential to destroy competitors as anything Moto can do with FRAND patents.
Otherwise Apple is rightly proud of their mobile creations and using the courts to assist with protection of their market should be expected.
Remember when Google said this about patent holders trying to get paid for Android's infringments?
Quote:
A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.
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.
Why does it have to be Apple? Right now, I'm finding Bing search and maps meet or exceed Google's offerings and have switched all my search defaults. There's a rare occasion where a Bing search fails and I fall back to Google, but the point is that the competition is there. Disconnect from Google and move on. I have. It's really not that hard.
And FWIW, I didn't dump Google because they are Apple's competitors. I couldn't give a rip about that. I dumped Google because their search engine really isn't that good any more and because their search results are overloaded with ads and paid placements. That and their admittance that G+ was an "identity service" made me move on. Google used to be indispensable but not any more. They've spent too much time and energy working on stuff outside their main competencies that the core products have lagged massively.
They've spent too much time and energy working on stuff outside their main competencies that the core products have lagged massively.
Retool and restart.
Combine maps with GPS with turn by turn with those cars they've been making and sell that technology to every car company in the world.
Give up on ads. People hate ads. Give up on search; you're loading it with ads (well, before six years ago. AdBlock and Ghostery make no ads a reality in Google searches). Give up on everything else.
You didn't reinvent search, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent ads, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent SEO, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent e-mail, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent video, Google. You bought a company and refined it.
You didn't reinvent phones, Google. You stole an OS.
You didn't reinvent desktop OS', Google. You made whatever vaporware ChromeOS is supposed to be.
You didn't reinvent browsers, Google. You perpetuated your proprietary crap.
Be like Apple for once in your existence. Reinvent driving.
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.
That's exactly what Google is doing, and it's exactly what's reprehensible.
Again, we have to distinguish between FRAND patents, that are part of the standard and absolutely necessary to building the device, at all, and Apple's solutions to making a new kind of smart phone--solutions that while extremely compelling and quickly enough adopted industry wide as the "correct" solution, are not required of any competitor to create a functioning phone.
You seem very intent on conflating the two, and feel that holding the industry hostage for necessary standards is a fair way for Google to get access to Apple's desirable design and software innovations. And that that somehow is good for all.
I'll never understand the implacable hostility directed at Apple, all the while demanding that its research and development should be treated like a communal grocery store. People often pretend like Apple just gets lucky over and over again, or just happens to hit on the right and obvious solutions slightly before the rest of the industry, so it's somehow unfair for them to try to hang onto their competitive advantages. The thinking seems to go that Apple is just this unfortunate location where the good ideas happen to come to earth, and they must then be quickly wrestled out of Apple's grasp so decent people can enjoy the results, not just those shitty Apple losers.
It'a a really fucked up attitude, but amazingly prevalent. I guess people need some kind of framework to handle the cognitive dissonance of the a company they hate repeatedly inventing the future.
Remember when Google said this about patent holders trying to get paid for Android's infringments?
Yup. Still valid IMO, but I'm assuming that's not the point you're trying to make. Apple has some valid complaints, tho any claim that overall Android is a copy of iOS isn't one of them IMO. I don't have any issue with them going to the courts if they have valid reasons to truly feel someone is using their smartphone or tablet IP without permission.
My eyes roll when companies, not Apple specifically, read new meanings into old patents, particularly when they don't use those patents themselves, yet feign egregious harm from someone's use of a feature that can only imaginatively be considered infringement.
Don't even get me started on Community Design stuff.
You seem very intent on conflating the two, and feel that holding the industry hostage for necessary standards is a fair way for Google to get access to Apple's desirable design and software innovations.
Are you apparently not seeing my numerous mentions that I don't agree with using FRAND-pledged patents against competitor's. See post 107 and 109 in just this thread. There's at least one, perhaps two other posts on my displeasure with Google's letter in another thread from last night.
Having an understanding for why something takes place is not in any way the same as condoning it. I understand why some people drive home after having too many drinks. That isn't saying I think it's the right thing to do.
In that case then Google should get Moto to drop all their licensing fees.
To paraphrase what Apple said in their letter to the IEEE concerning FRAND patent policies, Google would probably "be willing to commit to this framework, provided that other parties reciprocate."
Are you apparently not seeing my numerous mentions that I don't agree with using FRAND-pledged patents against competitor's.
Having an understanding for why something takes place is not in any way the same as condoning it. I understand why some people drive home after having too many drinks. That isn't saying I think it's the right thing to do.
Nope, sorry, you said this:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.
That's a more in sorrow than anger backhanded endorsement of Google's strategy, wherein FRAND abuse is necessary for an "equitable arrangement" where "all can have a chance of success."
In other words, Google, bless their souls, just wants perfectly reasonable access to Apple's user experience innovations, and if they have to blow up the entire industry to do it, well, regrettable but understandable.
And of course it goes without saying that Apple's litigation is likely unfounded, since this whole "shooting each other with loaded patents" thing is clearly just out of control aggression, rather than being the legitimate response to seeing your unprecedented work in the mobile space diffuse to your competitors in short order. I mean, Apple sued for a black rectangle, amiright?
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.
That's a more in sorrow than anger backhanded endorsement of Google's strategy, wherein FRAND abuse is necessary for an "equitable arrangement" where "all can have a chance of success."
In other words, Google, bless their souls, just wants perfectly reasonable access to Apple's user experience innovations, and if they have to blow up the entire industry to do it, well, regrettable but understandable.
And of course it goes without saying that Apple's litigation is likely unfounded, since this whole "shooting each other with loaded patents" thing is clearly just out of control aggression, rather than being the legitimate response to seeing your unprecedented work in the mobile space diffuse to your competitors in short order. I mean, Apple sued for a black rectangle, amiright?
You apparently missed post 107 and 109 in this thread, plus at least one other voicing my disagreement and displeasure in a thread from last night.
EDIT: there's also here, post 14 last night, well before anyone else mentioned it, including AI.
Going to the source of your link, the ever reliable FOSS Patents blog, I found this:-
Quote:
The dispute started in October 2009. Nokia emerges victorious:
"The financial structure of the agreement consists of a one-time payment payable by Apple and on-going royalties to be paid by Apple to Nokia for the term of the agreement. The specific terms of the contract are confidential."
"ongoing royalties" with no description of how those "ongoing royalties" are determined or whether those "ongoing royalties are based on "number of iPhones sold" or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not familiar with the challenges I'm referring to? I'll refresh a couple from just the last day or so.
Refer to the previous link, revoking the licenses of chipmakers means the patent isn't exhausted when used in a device, making demands for payment on the entire cost of the device possible.
Just in case you missed the link I am referring to:-
Why does it have to be Apple? Right now, I'm finding Bing search and maps meet or exceed Google's offerings and have switched all my search defaults. There's a rare occasion where a Bing search fails and I fall back to Google, but the point is that the competition is there. Disconnect from Google and move on. I have. It's really not that hard.
And FWIW, I didn't dump Google because they are Apple's competitors. I couldn't give a rip about that. I dumped Google because their search engine really isn't that good any more and because their search results are overloaded with ads and paid placements. That and their admittance that G+ was an "identity service" made me move on. Google used to be indispensable but not any more. They've spent too much time and energy working on stuff outside their main competencies that the core products have lagged massively.
Comments
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.
The specific's including the agreed on royalty percentage may be speculative, but the fact that on-going royalties are being paid based on iPhone sales is not. As for the length of time the agreement will be in place, I've never stated one, nor have I even seen a guess posted by anyone else.
As for whether a significant number of the patents that make the iPhone unique were licensed to Nokia, who knows. Apple would only say it wasn't the majority of them.
Please post a link showing "the fact that on-going royalties are being paid based on iPhone sales", otherwise you are just making stuff up.
If you wish to be a bit more detailed on what part of my post is clueless, I don't mind at all. I'm always open to members views, particularly those I hadn't yet considered. Perhaps you have some insights to share.
So what say you long time lurker?
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.
But you don't gamble with the FRAND patents though. If it was the other non FRAND stuff I could well understand that, but it's not - this is stuff that you've brought to the table to create a standard with the appropriate bodies.
And the bodies themselves don't want this crap either as it makes them worthless. What's the point of a body that promotes a standard, if the owners of the standards are at each others throats all the time?
Please post a link showing "the fact that on-going royalties are being paid based on iPhone sales", otherwise you are just making stuff up.
Even tho you don't supply back-up for your own posted "facts" when challenged, I'm happy to oblige you anyway.
http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-and-...hone-it-sells/
Not familiar with the challenges I'm referring to? I'll refresh a couple from just the last day or so.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...87#post2040587 Post 5
and here, Post 109. I've even been polite about it and didn't accuse you of "making stuff up".
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=143044&page=3
But you don't gamble with the FRAND patents though. If it was the other non FRAND stuff I could well understand that, but it's not - this is stuff that you've brought to the table to create a standard with the appropriate bodies.
And the bodies themselves don't want this crap either as it makes them worthless. What's the point of a body that promotes a standard, if the owners of the standards are at each others throats all the time?
I agree that FRAND patents shouldn't be used in this manner. The problem is that they sometimes are and have been in the past. Probably will in the future too. Apparently the groups responsible for over-seeing standards don't have rules in place on how to determine values, define what is reasonable, or even how to divide revenues when several different entities contribute IP. There doesn't appear to be any clear rules on much of this, or what the law requires.
Now throw in the Orange Book rules that German courts use, but no one else (and that Apple has used to their advantage in other cases), and there shouldn't be any surprise that if a company feels it's back is to a wall those FRAND patents become lawsuit fodder and Germany is the ideal place to use them.
I agree that FRAND patents shouldn't be used in this manner. The problem is that they sometimes are and have been in the past. Probably will in the future too. Apparently the groups responsible for over-seeing standards don't have rules in place on how to determine values, define what is reasonable, or even how to divide revenues when several different entities contribute IP. There doesn't appear to be any clear rules on much of this, or what the law requires.
Now throw in the Orange Book rules that German courts use, but no one else (and that Apple has used to their advantage in other cases), and there shouldn't be any surprise that if a company feels it's back is to a wall those FRAND patents become lawsuit fodder and Germany is the ideal place to use them.
I agree, it should be no surprise, but my point is that a company that pulls these stunts (remember that Apple and Microsoft are not suing over FRAND patents) will find itself on the outside rather quickly.
Where does that leave your business when everyone else is kicking you in the nuts because you were a prat a couple of years earlier?
I agree, it should be no surprise, but my point is that a company that pulls these stunts (remember that Apple and Microsoft are not suing over FRAND patents) will find itself on the outside rather quickly.
Where does that leave your business when everyone else is kicking you in the nuts because you were a prat a couple of years earlier?
Microsoft may not be using FRAND patents, but the supposedly "strong" ones it has been bullying Android vendors with may not even be valid. This according to ArsTechnica.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...1#comments-bar
That might be why they've insisted on negotiating in secret, and won't even discuss in detail unless the vendor agrees to a non-disclosure. Microsoft is so big with so much money they can outlast many challengers, throwing lawyers at them until the vendor gives in. Simply telling a company that they're filing suit might be enough to bluff some into agreeing to license patents that may be judged invalid anyway.
To repeat, I don't agree with using FRAND-pledged patents to answer challengers. At the same time I consider MS a well-funded bully trying to make Android too expensive to compete with MS mobile plans, and using bogus patents to do so.
As for Apple, I don't really have too many issues with most of it's IP lawsuits so far, with the exception of their dubious Community Design silliness. Those are just a bit over the top and have as much unfair potential to destroy competitors as anything Moto can do with FRAND patents.
Otherwise Apple is rightly proud of their mobile creations and using the courts to assist with protection of their market should be expected.
A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.
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.
Why does it have to be Apple? Right now, I'm finding Bing search and maps meet or exceed Google's offerings and have switched all my search defaults. There's a rare occasion where a Bing search fails and I fall back to Google, but the point is that the competition is there. Disconnect from Google and move on. I have. It's really not that hard.
And FWIW, I didn't dump Google because they are Apple's competitors. I couldn't give a rip about that. I dumped Google because their search engine really isn't that good any more and because their search results are overloaded with ads and paid placements. That and their admittance that G+ was an "identity service" made me move on. Google used to be indispensable but not any more. They've spent too much time and energy working on stuff outside their main competencies that the core products have lagged massively.
They've spent too much time and energy working on stuff outside their main competencies that the core products have lagged massively.
Retool and restart.
Combine maps with GPS with turn by turn with those cars they've been making and sell that technology to every car company in the world.
Give up on ads. People hate ads. Give up on search; you're loading it with ads (well, before six years ago. AdBlock and Ghostery make no ads a reality in Google searches). Give up on everything else.
You didn't reinvent search, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent ads, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent SEO, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent e-mail, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent video, Google. You bought a company and refined it.
You didn't reinvent phones, Google. You stole an OS.
You didn't reinvent desktop OS', Google. You made whatever vaporware ChromeOS is supposed to be.
You didn't reinvent browsers, Google. You perpetuated your proprietary crap.
Be like Apple for once in your existence. Reinvent driving.
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.
That's exactly what Google is doing, and it's exactly what's reprehensible.
Again, we have to distinguish between FRAND patents, that are part of the standard and absolutely necessary to building the device, at all, and Apple's solutions to making a new kind of smart phone--solutions that while extremely compelling and quickly enough adopted industry wide as the "correct" solution, are not required of any competitor to create a functioning phone.
You seem very intent on conflating the two, and feel that holding the industry hostage for necessary standards is a fair way for Google to get access to Apple's desirable design and software innovations. And that that somehow is good for all.
I'll never understand the implacable hostility directed at Apple, all the while demanding that its research and development should be treated like a communal grocery store. People often pretend like Apple just gets lucky over and over again, or just happens to hit on the right and obvious solutions slightly before the rest of the industry, so it's somehow unfair for them to try to hang onto their competitive advantages. The thinking seems to go that Apple is just this unfortunate location where the good ideas happen to come to earth, and they must then be quickly wrestled out of Apple's grasp so decent people can enjoy the results, not just those shitty Apple losers.
It'a a really fucked up attitude, but amazingly prevalent. I guess people need some kind of framework to handle the cognitive dissonance of the a company they hate repeatedly inventing the future.
Remember when Google said this about patent holders trying to get paid for Android's infringments?
Yup. Still valid IMO, but I'm assuming that's not the point you're trying to make. Apple has some valid complaints, tho any claim that overall Android is a copy of iOS isn't one of them IMO. I don't have any issue with them going to the courts if they have valid reasons to truly feel someone is using their smartphone or tablet IP without permission.
My eyes roll when companies, not Apple specifically, read new meanings into old patents, particularly when they don't use those patents themselves, yet feign egregious harm from someone's use of a feature that can only imaginatively be considered infringement.
Don't even get me started on Community Design stuff.
Yup. Still valid IMO...
In that case then Google should get Moto to drop all their licensing fees.
You seem very intent on conflating the two, and feel that holding the industry hostage for necessary standards is a fair way for Google to get access to Apple's desirable design and software innovations.
Are you apparently not seeing my numerous mentions that I don't agree with using FRAND-pledged patents against competitor's.
Having an understanding for why something takes place is not in any way the same as condoning it. I understand why some people drive home after having too many drinks. That isn't saying I think it's the right thing to do.
In that case then Google should get Moto to drop all their licensing fees.
To paraphrase what Apple said in their letter to the IEEE concerning FRAND patent policies, Google would probably "be willing to commit to this framework, provided that other parties reciprocate."
Are you apparently not seeing my numerous mentions that I don't agree with using FRAND-pledged patents against competitor's.
Having an understanding for why something takes place is not in any way the same as condoning it. I understand why some people drive home after having too many drinks. That isn't saying I think it's the right thing to do.
Nope, sorry, you said this:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.
That's a more in sorrow than anger backhanded endorsement of Google's strategy, wherein FRAND abuse is necessary for an "equitable arrangement" where "all can have a chance of success."
In other words, Google, bless their souls, just wants perfectly reasonable access to Apple's user experience innovations, and if they have to blow up the entire industry to do it, well, regrettable but understandable.
And of course it goes without saying that Apple's litigation is likely unfounded, since this whole "shooting each other with loaded patents" thing is clearly just out of control aggression, rather than being the legitimate response to seeing your unprecedented work in the mobile space diffuse to your competitors in short order. I mean, Apple sued for a black rectangle, amiright?
Nope, sorry, you said this:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.
That's a more in sorrow than anger backhanded endorsement of Google's strategy, wherein FRAND abuse is necessary for an "equitable arrangement" where "all can have a chance of success."
In other words, Google, bless their souls, just wants perfectly reasonable access to Apple's user experience innovations, and if they have to blow up the entire industry to do it, well, regrettable but understandable.
And of course it goes without saying that Apple's litigation is likely unfounded, since this whole "shooting each other with loaded patents" thing is clearly just out of control aggression, rather than being the legitimate response to seeing your unprecedented work in the mobile space diffuse to your competitors in short order. I mean, Apple sued for a black rectangle, amiright?
You apparently missed post 107 and 109 in this thread, plus at least one other voicing my disagreement and displeasure in a thread from last night.
EDIT: there's also here, post 14 last night, well before anyone else mentioned it, including AI.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...47#post2040747
No need to apologize. It's easy to miss posts here and there. It's a busy forum.
Even tho you don't supply back-up for your own posted "facts" when challenged, I'm happy to oblige you anyway.
http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-and-...hone-it-sells/
Going to the source of your link, the ever reliable FOSS Patents blog, I found this:-
The dispute started in October 2009. Nokia emerges victorious:
"The financial structure of the agreement consists of a one-time payment payable by Apple and on-going royalties to be paid by Apple to Nokia for the term of the agreement. The specific terms of the contract are confidential."
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com.au/2...t-dispute.html
Although I usually post links like this:-
Source
"ongoing royalties" with no description of how those "ongoing royalties" are determined or whether those "ongoing royalties are based on "number of iPhones sold" or not.
Not familiar with the challenges I'm referring to? I'll refresh a couple from just the last day or so.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...87#post2040587 Post 5
This is a link I posted earlier in regards to this, I direct your attention specifically to parts C and D.
http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws....doc_num-93.pdf
and here, Post 109. I've even been polite about it and didn't accuse you of "making stuff up".
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=143044&page=3
Refer to the previous link, revoking the licenses of chipmakers means the patent isn't exhausted when used in a device, making demands for payment on the entire cost of the device possible.
Just in case you missed the link I am referring to:-
http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws....doc_num-93.pdf
Here it is again, specifically parts C and D.
Why does it have to be Apple? Right now, I'm finding Bing search and maps meet or exceed Google's offerings and have switched all my search defaults. There's a rare occasion where a Bing search fails and I fall back to Google, but the point is that the competition is there. Disconnect from Google and move on. I have. It's really not that hard.
And FWIW, I didn't dump Google because they are Apple's competitors. I couldn't give a rip about that. I dumped Google because their search engine really isn't that good any more and because their search results are overloaded with ads and paid placements. That and their admittance that G+ was an "identity service" made me move on. Google used to be indispensable but not any more. They've spent too much time and energy working on stuff outside their main competencies that the core products have lagged massively.
You can always fall back on this:-
https://startpage.com/
Use Google search without Google knowing who you are.