Apple lodged FRAND abuse complaint against Motorola with European Commission

12346

Comments

  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,879member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    No, that's just the same OASIS language (and do you have some reason to believe that OASIS is the relevant standards body in this case?) that you keep linking to.



    Yes, I believe it's in the article I linked you to at Groklaw.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    The assumption made by you and Galbi. . .



    Umm. . . No, not Galbi and me.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    So are you insisting that "sub-licensing" means that every manufacturer in a chain has to pay royalties to the holder of FRAND patents?



    No again. See post #94 for my previous statements on it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Let me guess: you have no real opinion on the matter, you just want everyone to "educate" themselves by reading up on on licensing body's terms...



    You finally got it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    If you don't want people taking you to task...



    I encourage anyone to take me to task when I post something as fact that isn't. Point out the error, show me where I'm wrong and I've always been happy to admit my mistake. You're not human if you don't make them.



    You've probably noticed that I go out of my way to indicate if something I'm stating is fact or opinion. I love it when others clarify by doing the same.
  • muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,236member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Yes, I posted mine twice. I guess you missed them. See post#94 where I linked both of them again for another poster.



    In a nutshell I don't know for certain what Oasis means by the term, tho they may have a definition at their site. It doesn't matter in this particular case (at least IMO) since if it was pertinent to begin with the German judge is likely to have already dismissed that argument for the sake of that case. It would be hard to believe it wasn't mentioned if Moto or Oasis had an argument to make.



    I saw some links to the same article, but no opinion. I don't understand - you jumped into this discussion but now don't seem to want to continue. If you really have no opinion on the meaning of "sub-license" then that's obviously your prerogative, but it's a quite basic term and concept, and an issue that you mentioned as important in post #45, so I'm a bit surprised.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,879member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    I saw some links to the same article, but no opinion. I don't understand - you jumped into this discussion but now don't seem to want to continue. If you really have no opinion on the meaning of "sub-license" then that's obviously your prerogative, but it's a quite basic term and concept, and an issue that you mentioned as important in post #45, so I'm a bit surprised.



    You've confused me Muppetry and I can only assume you've either misunderstood something I posted or are reading the wrong comment.



    In my post 45 I said:



    "I was wondering if anyone was going to bother pointing that out (the actual licensing terms Motorola obligated itself to). I came across that a few days ago at one of the patent-blog sites.



    For all the talk of what was fair and Motorola's obligations under FRAND, it seems no one bothered to look at the standard agreement (the Oasis agreement linked at Groklaw) from the body who composed the applicable FRAND standards, and Motorola's obligations and rights under it."



    "EDIT: I couldn't remember exactly where I had seen it (I originally thought PatentlyO), but here it is.

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....20213092754823"



    I don't know how you get your idea that I thought sub-licensing in the agreement affected Apple in some way, or that I considered it of primary importance, unless you thought including Galbi's link was an indication to you that I agree with him. At no time have I considered that particular point to negatively impact Apple, and thus spent no time trying to figure out exactly what it meant. In fact I gave sub-licensing itself little thought until someone, perhaps it was you, asked what I thought the term meant. I was more concerned with the overall explanation of FRAND rights and obligations as described at Groklaw.



    Since you want an opinion I haven't yet formed, and it's pretty important to you to know what I think on the subject, let me take some time this evening to see if I can get enough information to form one. If there's something more you expect me to say on the subject at the moment I can only refer you back to post 94 where I already quoted my previous opinions on it.



    You really think I have a history of dodging a discussion or not supporting my arguments?
  • muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,236member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    You've confused me Muppetry and I can only assume you've either misunderstood something I posted or are reading the wrong comment.



    In my post 45 I said:



    "I was wondering if anyone was going to bother pointing that out (the actual licensing terms Motorola obligated itself to). I came across that a few days ago at one of the patent-blog sites.



    Miscommunication possibly. What you actually posted in #45:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:



    Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm.





    I was wondering if anyone was going to bother pointing that out. I came across that a few days ago at one of the patent-blog sites.



    For all the talk of what was fair and Motorola's obligations under FRAND, it seems no one bothered to look at the standard agreement from the body who composed the applicable FRAND standards, and Motorola's obligations and rights under it.



    EDIT: I couldn't remember exactly where I had seen it (I originally thought PatentlyO), but here it is.

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....20213092754823



    I think that is what confused several posters, myself included - the part of Galbi's post that you quoted there was exclusively about the sub-licensing issue, and you said that you were wondering if anyone was going to point that out. I certainly took that to mean that you agreed with that comment.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I don't know how you get your idea that I thought sub-licensing in the agreement affected Apple in some way, or that I considered it of primary importance, unless you thought including Galbi's link was an indication to you that I agree with him. At no time have I considered that particular point to negatively impact Apple, and thus spent no time trying to figure out exactly what it meant. In fact I gave sub-licensing itself little thought until someone, perhaps it was you, asked what I thought the term meant. I was more concerned with the overall explanation of FRAND rights and obligations as described at Groklaw.



    Explained above...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Since you want an opinion I haven't yet formed, and it's pretty important to you to know what I think on the subject, let me take some time this evening to see if I can get enough information to form one. If there's something more you expect me to say on the subject at the moment I can only refer you back to post 94 where I already quoted my previous opinions on it.



    Not important - just wondered why you seemed to be ignoring the question. Now I understand.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    You really think I have a history of dodging a discussion or not supporting my arguments?



    Not at all - hence my surprise this time.
  • galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    By your logic, if I buy iPhones and resell them new or used on eBay, I should need to pay Moto a license fee?



    Lol, how many times do you think Moto should be paid?



    Do you know the difference between a manufacturer and a retailer/reseller?



    Manufacturer makes modifications to the actual product itself.



    Retailer/reseller do not. Hence, they have no relations or business dealing with the licensing aspect.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Yep, just like all the other phone manufacturers that use Qualcomm chips, now as Motorola isn't exactly rolling in the money that you'd expect from a 2.25% royalty on almost every handset sold on earth, it's pretty obvious that how they are treating Apple is discriminatory and against the terms of F/RAND.



    What I don't get is why you choose to support such anti-competitive behaviour from Motorola.



    I hear that argument before from Android fans in reference to Apple's purported claims of "patent infringement" of "design patents".







    P.S. Look at how lively the discussion here at AI is once we have people like me contributing to the arguments. Brings out the passionate fans from both sides, increases post counts for everyone, increases page hits for AI and I get to spend my free time debating with you folks. Everyone is a winner!



    Oh and to Gatorguy, Go Gators!
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,879member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Do you know the difference between a manufacturer and a retailer/reseller?



    Manufacturer makes modifications to the actual product itself.



    Retailer/reseller do not. Hence, they have no relations or business dealing with the licensing aspect.







    I hear that argument before from Android fans in reference to Apple's purported claims of "patent infringement" of "design patents".







    P.S. Look at how lively the discussion here at AI is once we have people like me contributing to the arguments. Brings out the passionate fans from both sides, increases post counts for everyone, increases page hits for AI and I get to spend my free time debating with you folks. Everyone is a winner!



    Oh and to Gatorguy, Go Gators!



    GatorNation is everywhere. . .
  • misamisa Posts: 666member
    IANAL...



    I predict Motorola ultimately is going to lose due to trying to double dip on the FRAND GPRS/GSM related patents.



    To put it in context, Motorola is pulling the same kind of argument that Fraunhofer tried to pull with the Mpeg-1 Layer 3 (AKA "MP3", ISO CD 11172) format. Where they tried to charge for any form of software, hardware and complete device that can play or create an mp3. Short answer, your patent gets worked-around or unsupported until the patent runs out.



    With GSM, there is NO ALTERNATIVE WHATSOEVER, and we can't wait 20 years for the patents to expire. GSM has only been in operation since 1991. It'll be 2040 before all the patents on 4G LTE expire. Qualcomm owns most of the patents on the CDMA, which is an underlying technology in 3G GSM UMTS(W-CDMA), and in 4G LTE.



    So it's absolutely absurd that Qualcomm would sell chips to Apple, Samsung, Motorola, and not have the rights to do so. Apple isn't re-implementing GSM, EDGE, UMTS in software.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,879member
    http://press.ffii.org/Press%20releas...%20and%20FRAND



    Brussels, 17 Feb 2012 -- The European Parliament Consumer Committee is on the verge to reform the standardisation process in Europe. The reform recognises patented interface specifications which discriminate Free Software implementations. Royalties over standards create an unavoidable barrier of entry in the market for small software companies and independent developers.



    Benjamin Henrion, president of the association complains: "The payment of royalties makes it impossible to distribute free software on the web. It creates an enormous barrier of entry for small companies and independent developers. Authors of the software VideoLAN have been previously threatened by patent holders because they implemented an ETSI standard for a video decoder."



    The reform recognises digital specifications which are licensed under "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions" (FRAND).



    Henrion continues: "Even consortia like ECMA refuse to define what the RAND term means, because it simply does not mean anything. It is a shame that lawmakers use a term that has no clear definition."



    Yet that doesn't keep poster after poster in this thread or others from claiming or implying they know what (F)RAND means and Motorola is plainly and illegally violating it.
  • hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I didn't cherry-pick any paragraphs. That was Galbi's clip. I figured it was a matter of time before someone pointed to the actual agreement terms that Motorola was operating under. I posted a link to the entire discussion of FRAND licensing which it appears you may not have bothered to read either.



    Well, see that's just the second place you were wrong, because I had read the whole Groklaw piece and found it lacking. The first mistake happened when you quoted Galbi, and responded only referencing those paragraphs he quoted. You didn't widen the discussion to the whole Groklaw article until many posts later when you tried unsuccessfully to dig your way out of the hole you made for yourself. You are also slowly expanding your circle of "get me the hell out of this mess quoting" by now linking in your later posts straight to OASIS. You can't get yourself out of a position by waving your hands at a link to a standards body document.



    I have never felt overly comfortable with Groklaw's blogs. Too many times have I read multiple other positions on FOSS software licensing which do not agree very well. I have the feeling they are a bit overly "progressive" in some of their FOSS opinions. Take that track record plus an out of context standards document quote that ignores almost everything else factually reported about the Moto case and I don't give that particular article any personal weight.



    Because IANAL I'm not "qualified" to say they are wrong, but I am saying I wouldn't bet anything tangible on that blog. And I have a very low opinion of stances that attempt to use that particular blog article as a base to work from, that's just a two legged stool.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,879member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Well, see that's just the second place you were wrong. The first happen when you quoted Galbi, and only those paragraphs he quoted. You didn't widen the discussion to the whole Groklaw article until many posts later when you tried unsuccessfully to dig your way out of the hole you made for yourself.



    Dude. . .

    Go back and look at the first post where I responded to Galbi, post 45.

    Look at the time I posted, then look at the time I edited it to mention I found the original source and linked it.



    I've referenced the entire article concerning FRAND issues at Groklaw since my very first post where the Oasis license was mentioned.



    I don't expect that to stop the accusations from you of course. You've apparently made up your mind I must be wrong somehow or other. You just haven't been able to nail down where yet.



    Rather the the vague "digging yourself out of a hole" you'd help yourself clear up your own confusion by posting just what it was I claimed that I now need to dig from under.
  • hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    Neither you nor Galbi responded on the question of the meaning of "sub-license" - did you not have an opinion on that?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Yes, I posted mine twice. I guess you missed them. See post#94 where I linked both of them again for another poster.



    In a nutshell I don't know for certain what Oasis means by the term, tho they may have a definition at their site. It doesn't matter in this particular case (at least IMO) since if it was pertinent to begin with the German judge is likely to have already dismissed that argument for the sake of that case. It would be hard to believe it wasn't mentioned if Moto or Oasis had an argument to make.



    No you have not responded to the sub-license commenting. You just posted a link to the same paragraphs that Groklaw (then Galbi) lifted, and conveniently ignored the follow on paragraphs in the OASIS document (you posted!!!) that refer to "OASIS Standards Final Deliverable". That little quoted string is where the patent exhaustion happens. Moto wants to redefine that to become the consumer deliverable, the rest of the industry considers that term to refer to completed standards compliant chipsets before mounting into a specific device.



    We won't set the precedent for where that line is drawn because once somebody sues over it, it is judge and jury that do that. But it is very obvious based on simple arithmetic and direct quotes from Moto's lawyers that the Moto lawsuit position is dramatically different that how the communications industry has informally interpreted that for years (decades). Those quotes and arithmetic are freely available in the series of related threads, no need to regurgitate it again here.
  • hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Dude. . .

    Go back and look at the first post where I responded to Galbi, post 45.

    Look at the time I posted, then look at the time I edited it to mention I found the original source and linked it.



    I've referenced the entire article concerning FRAND issues at Groklaw since my very first post where the Oasis license was mentioned.



    I don't expect that to stop the accusations from you of course. You've apparently made up your mind I must be wrong somehow or other. You just haven't been able to nail down where yet.



    Rather the the vague "digging yourself out of a hole" you'd help yourself clear up your own confusion by posting just what it was I claimed that I now need to dig from under.



    Fail. A post post edit doesn't reset the timeline.



    And hey, I don't have to decide whether or not you are wrong. I only point out over and over again the chunks of fact you conveniently avoid referencing. Others can decide if you are right or wrong from that. I just like seeing the whole truth cause a cascade of ass-covering and goalpost moving.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,879member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    No you have not responded to the sub-license commenting. You just posted a link to the same paragraphs that Groklaw (then Galbi) lifted, and conveniently ignored the follow on paragraphs in the OASIS document.



    I've never discussed sub-licensing at all other than to indicate its wasn't important to me at the moment and I had no opinion on what it meant. Consider reading the previous replies, particularly to Muppetry. When discussing FRAND issues in this thread I've always linked to the entire Groklaw article or the Oasis website and docs directly. I've never clipped out a portion of the license and posted it.



    Feel free to correct me.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,879member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Fail. A post post edit doesn't reset the timeline.



    And hey, I don't have to decide whether or not you are wrong. I only point out over and over again the chunks of fact you conveniently avoid referencing. Others can decide if you are right or wrong from that. I just like seeing the whole truth cause a cascade of ass-covering and goalpost moving.



    Then simply show me what I claimed that I need to "cover my ass" for now. That's an easy request isn't it?



    EDIT: Keep looking. . .

    It's gotta be there somewhere
  • hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:



    I would hardly take as final the word of an organization that has "No ePatents" as one of it's official taglines for a project designed to create a cross North American/EU patent system. Advertising that they are helping guide the creation of a patent system that they hope disenfranchises certain types of IP is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.



    And the FFI's other stated goal of getting the EU to exclude FOSS from having to comply with patents is just a way to do the same thing but by not assaulting the ability to make a ePatent. You would just need to post code online in an open source manner and would automagically be free of patenting restrictions even if you sold something using the patented IP.



    You are really trying hard to find anyone who can provide a safe harbor reference-wise. So hard that you really aren't paying attention to what exactly you are associating your posts with. If you really agreed with FFI, you might be saying Moto doesn't have any rights if Apple or Qualcomm open sourced any of the code that dealt with the patent. Yes I'm flinging a little hyperbole here, but it illuminates a very large hole in your debate tactics.
  • hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Then simply show me what I claimed that I need to "cover my ass" for now. That's an easy request isn't it?



    EDIT: Keep looking. . .

    It's gotta be there somewhere



    Look up. Oh yeah, at all those posts you just suddenly seem to have forgotten. Or is it simply Alzheimer's?
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,879member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    ... but it illuminates a very large hole in your debate tactics.



    The hole in the debate tactics is your failure to back up a claim with an example.



    Still waiting to see your proof for the hole you claim I'm trying to dig out of.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,879member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Look up. Oh yeah, at all those posts you just suddenly seem to have forgotten. Or is it simply Alzheimer's?



    I figured as much. If you're going to attempt an honest debate and toss accusations along the way, you might consider having some evidence for your position next time.



    Unless you have some to show, your accusations have become tiresome and a bit silly.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,879member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Yeah, I'm not sure Larry wants just damages or he would have settled long ago. He wants the court to uphold any piece of Java that will put the screws to Dalvik. He doesn't have to give Google a license, just take whatever damages he can get and then say to Google, change it or shut it down. The inconvenience to Google alone will probably be enough joy to get Larry through to the next America's Cup races.



    Oracles' patent case and thus licensing potential for those patents, has pretty much been destroyed by Google's attorneys. This according to both Groklaw and FOSSPatents, one of the more rare times recently they have been in near total agreement.

    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...s-gosling.html

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20223073144912



    Even the copyright claims are increasingly questionable according to both patent bloggers. IMO Oracle's lawsuit is in danger of completely falling apart at the seams.
  • hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Oracles' patent case and thus licensing potential for those patents, has pretty much been destroyed by Google's attorneys. This according to both Groklaw and FOSSPatents, one of the more rare times recently they have been in near total agreement.

    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...s-gosling.html

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20223073144912



    Even the copyright claims are increasingly questionable according to both patent bloggers. IMO Oracle's lawsuit is in danger of completely falling apart at the seams.



    You don't read Florian at FOSS very well. He gutted the Groklaw interpretation a couple days ago.



    Florian has always been a bit skeptical of the copyright parts of the Oracle/Google case.
Sign In or Register to comment.