Apple's latest legal victory over Motorola in Germany declared 'huge'

13

Comments

  • secular investorsecular investor Posts: 205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stniuk View Post


    I have found Googles strategy completely illogical. What do they have to gain from Android? They are an advertising company, do they actually think that all Android users use their search engine?

    They seem to be intent on pissing the rest of the tech world off and are not making a cent into the bargin. In fact his adventure is costing more every day both in money and goodwill from users.



    Quite right! Well said.



    Google's strategy is falling apart and is going to cost their shareholder's a fortune.
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    Are you talking about all that rooting stuff and other nonsense? That is just a tiny minority of them. The majority of Android users are not buying the higher priced phones.



    I was reading a forum a few days ago and some Android users were talking amongst themselves.



    This one guy had just bought some new Android phone and was unhappy with it and he was wondering about a few things.



    The typical answer was like this: No problem dude, just do like I did, put this custom ROM, ver. 20a.17 revision 14 on it, and everything will rock!







    Ok, wait a minute? Your posts are contradicting here. And I think your underlying premise is a bit flawed anyhow. Android phones are like the windows PC's put out by the major manufacturers. They are good enough to keep people buying but are not without the major flaws that prevent them from being truly polished equipment. There are good android phones as far as specifications but the equipment still runs Android.



    The issue is not that the users are too geeky or not intelligent. There will always be those that hack their phones, no matter what the platform. I was reading this internet forum the other day and this guy was upset that his iPhone did not allow him to do a certain function, and the replies were all typically: No problem dude, just run this jailbreak solution, connect to cydia and download this program to root your system and make this change to your phones software.



    I don't care for android much, but it is just a phone OS not an indication of intelligence.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post


    So Zither,



    Now you think Apple isn't creditworthy so they should be charged more?




    Of course not. And there is no reason to think I said anything like that. This "defend a statement you never made" stuff is annoying.
  • arbourablearbourable Posts: 13member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post


    So Zither,



    As Microsoft pointed out in their EU complaint, Motorola's attempt to charge 2.25% of the price of the entire product is outrageous and absurd and an anti-trust abuse of FRAND. They pointed out that there are hundreds of essential patents involved in wireless standards and if everyone charged 2.25% of the product price, a mobile phone would costs many times what it does now!



    Surely the point is that if patents amounted to hundreds of percent per unit, the manufacturer would actually lose money on every device sold, regardless of what they charge. That's one way to get rid of Apples cash mountain I suppose!



    But I do agree that this is a clear-cut case of anti-trust behaviour from Moto. I think they should be fined 10% of their world-wide revenue for each FRAND violation. Such an example would ensure that companies play nicely in future.
  • hattighattig Posts: 787member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post


    So Zither,



    Now you think Apple isn't creditworthy so they should be charged more?



    And volume in this context normally means you pay less, the greater the volume. iOS has amongst the highest volumes, so according to your inverse logic Apple should pay more?



    As Microsoft pointed out in their EU complaint, Motorola's attempt to charge 2.25% of the price of the entire product is outrageous and absurd and an anti-trust abuse of FRAND. They pointed out that there are hundreds of essential patents involved in wireless standards and if everyone charged 2.25% of the product price, a mobile phone would costs many times what it does now!



    Apple obviously have not offered Motorola 2.25% of the price of each iPhone, but the court has sided with Apple, saying that it highly likely to find that Apple's offer is fair and reasonable under FRAND.



    But of course you know better don't you Zither.



    Nice long reply completely missing Zither's point which was merely asserting the fact that FRAND doesn't mean equivalent. However yes, if Motorola charge everybody else between (for example) 0.1% and 0.3%, the 2.25% is quite a leap.



    Also, the case isn't over yet. Motorola will still be claiming that as Apple have shown bad faith in the past by not licensing the patent they should be able to charge more, i.e., the historical behaviour should affect the terms of the FRAND agreement. The judge thinks the finding will be that the historical behaviour and the ongoing licensing are different and thus licensing should not be an issue going on.



    Motorola still have the case for past damages for Apple's refusal to pay for the patent in the past. But even if that was $20 per device you are only talking $1b-$2b, small change for Apple, they won't feel any pressure to license their patents in return.



    I guess Motorola will take the PUSH email patent around Europe now.
  • battiato1981battiato1981 Posts: 206member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stniuk View Post


    I have found Googles strategy completely illogical. What do they have to gain from Android? They are an advertising company, do they actually think that all Android users use their search engine?

    They seem to be intent on pissing the rest of the tech world off and are not making a cent into the bargin. In fact his adventure is costing more every day both in money and goodwill from users.



    I concur. So insecure and overreaching, and in the process fouling their own nest.



    I would hate to be at a company that depended on advertising to keep it all afloat. But how else to you monetize search and not annoy people? Thats been their problem from day one. I have no answer to that.
  • hattighattig Posts: 787member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by arbourable View Post


    Surely the point is that if patents amounted to hundreds of percent per unit, the manufacturer would actually lose money on every device sold, regardless of what they charge. That's one way to get rid of Apples cash mountain I suppose!



    But I do agree that this is a clear-cut case of anti-trust behaviour from Moto. I think they should be fined 10% of their world-wide revenue for each FRAND violation. Such an example would ensure that companies play nicely in future.



    It's nothing of the sort. It's a legal disagreement based around the fact that Apple refused to pay a license for patents that Motorola have that are essential to some products that Apple sell.



    Because the two parties can't come to an agreement because Motorola feel that five years of Apple abusing their patent should have a certain cost and Apple think it should be a different cost means nothing.



    Apple pushes their patents around, many of them really quite bulls**t like the design patents. Oddly enough when they do that, other companies also press the big red patent button and the only people who gain are lawyers.
  • bsgincbsginc Posts: 78member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    The part where "non-discriminatory" means "identical".



    From Wikipedia:



    Non-discriminatory relates to both the terms and the rates included in licensing agreements. As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner. This does not mean that the rates and payment terms can?t change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee.





    You may want to learn the basics before offering further challenges. Pick you battles. I make mistakes, and you can exploit them if you wish. Your goal is to correct the errors, and not to mis-correct the valid points.



    Assuming you are right, then with Apple's high sales volume coupled with it's zero debt and high cash balance yielding a rock solid credit rating, the cost of licensing FRAND patents should be lower than charged to any other.



    Do you really think that the pricing that is being demanded of them is that good? Of course, that ignores tge fact that Quaalcom is the original licensee and they paid the initial license fees until Motorola, in a discriminatory move, refused to allow them to transfer the license to Apple (but not others).



    Both moves by Motorola are, by your definition, discriminatory.



    And, BTW, creditworthiness is rarely used to fix prices in business-to-business sales. It's a discriminatory pricing practice. Rather, creditworthiness defines how much one business is willing to sell another ON CREDIT. It does not affect the phe pricing of goods or services (except for lending rates).
  • freckledbruhfreckledbruh Posts: 520member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    It's nothing of the sort. It's a legal disagreement based around the fact that Apple refused to pay a license for patents that Motorola have that are essential to some products that Apple sell.



    Because the two parties can't come to an agreement because Motorola feel that five years of Apple abusing their patent should have a certain cost and Apple think it should be a different cost means nothing.



    Apple pushes their patents around, many of them really quite bulls**t like the design patents. Oddly enough when they do that, other companies also press the big red patent button and the only people who gain are lawyers.



    Um, no. Motorola's patents are essential to some products that ALL of the handset makers sell hence them being FRAND incumbered. Clearly Motorola didn't plan on offering Apple fair terms since in court it is asking for over 2% of the revenue made from each handset sold so the disagreement between the two companies isn't exactly a surprise and certainly doesn't pain Apple in some bad, grifting light.
  • afrodriafrodri Posts: 181member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stniuk View Post


    I have found Googles strategy completely illogical. What do they have to gain from Android? They are an advertising company, do they actually think that all Android users use their search engine?



    My take:



    Google saw mobile platforms as the "Next Big Thing" and they were afraid that Apple (or whoever would dominate the space) could shut them out with their own proprietary advertising solution. So, Google spent some of their cash on putting together an open-ish OS for cellphones and released it into the wild. The manufacturers who picked it up largely didn't want to get in to advertising, so Google didn't get shut out of this new market.



    Google also has the problem that they may a lot of money, but recognize they are currently a one-trick pony - the sell search ads and that makes the bulk of their revenue. They have a pretty high profit margin (about 25% of revenue), so they are using it to look around for new markets and to defend their current "turf". Developing Android probably didn't cost that much, so it was a reasonable hedge to ensure they had access to the mobile ad market.
  • battiato1981battiato1981 Posts: 206member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by afrodri View Post


    My take:



    Google saw mobile platforms as the "Next Big Thing" and they were afraid that Apple (or whoever would dominate the space) could shut them out with their own proprietary advertising solution. So, Google spent some of their cash on putting together an open-ish OS for cellphones and released it into the wild. The manufacturers who picked it up largely didn't want to get in to advertising, so Google didn't get shut out of this new market.



    Google also has the problem that they may a lot of money, but recognize they are currently a one-trick pony - the sell search ads and that makes the bulk of their revenue. They have a pretty high profit margin (about 25% of revenue), so they are using it to look around for new markets and to defend their current "turf". Developing Android probably didn't cost that much, so it was a reasonable hedge to ensure they had access to the mobile ad market.



    Not a bad take except I don't think they ever worried about Apple launching their own proprietary ad service. Apple had never shown any interest in doing that and has striven, on the desktop at least, to offer ad-free environments and products as one of the benefits of the Apple eco-system. But perhaps they viewed Apple as too powerful middle person between them and the search data that iOS users represented that they'd be better off trying to siphon some of those users off (?) Of course, Apple followed with iAd eventually, but its hasn't been much of a success and as for the search data of mobile Safari users, as we've seen, Google had a work around for Apples default cookie settings.



    Sometimes, what seemed like a good hedge only serves to hasten the very outcome that you were afraid of occurring. Now that is happening for Google, but hey, they've got Android up and very widely disseminated. It remains to be seen if that is something that will be viewed as a Google success in the monetary sense five years from now.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    Not a bad take except I don't think they ever worried about Apple launching their own proprietary ad service. Apple had never shown any interest in doing that and has striven, on the desktop at least, to offer ad-free environments and products as one of the benefits of the Apple eco-system. But perhaps they viewed Apple as too powerful middle person between them and the search data that iOS users represented that they'd be better off trying to siphon some of those users off (?) Of course, Apple followed with iAd eventually, but its hasn't been much of a success and as for the search data of mobile Safari users, as we've seen, Google had a work around for Apples default cookie settings.



    Sometimes, what seemed like a good hedge only serves to hasten the very outcome that you were afraid of occurring. Now that is happening for Google, but hey, they've got Android up and very widely disseminated. It remains to be seen if that is something that will be viewed as a Google success in the monetary sense five years from now.



    I think that's right. Apple seemed perfectly content to let Google handle the advertising while Apple did the hardware and software - until Google kicked them in the teeth. Google probably created their own competition.



    Similarly, Amazon looks like it's going to be competition for Android rather than the partner it could have been.
  • hill60hill60 Posts: 6,960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post


    So would that only be relevant if you use iCloud/MobileMe email? Not a web mail or exchange service? As in not many people



    Only the Germans among 100 million iCloud users.
  • freckledbruhfreckledbruh Posts: 520member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I think that's right. Apple seemed perfectly content to let Google handle the advertising while Apple did the hardware and software - until Google kicked them in the teeth. Google probably created their own competition.



    Similarly, Amazon looks like it's going to be competition for Android rather than the partner it could have been.



    Gator and I debated this quite a few months ago. He stated (and I eventually conceded) that Google was more worried about Microsoft locking them out of the mobile space. I still think it was stupid for Google to release an OS with no clear business plan and basically throwing cash down a hole due to paranoia that it was going to miss out on mobile advertising.
  • hill60hill60 Posts: 6,960member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    Nice long reply completely missing Zither's point which was merely asserting the fact that FRAND doesn't mean equivalent. However yes, if Motorola charge everybody else between (for example) 0.1% and 0.3%, the 2.25% is quite a leap.



    Also, the case isn't over yet. Motorola will still be claiming that as Apple have shown bad faith in the past by not licensing the patent they should be able to charge more, i.e., the historical behaviour should affect the terms of the FRAND agreement. The judge thinks the finding will be that the historical behaviour and the ongoing licensing are different and thus licensing should not be an issue going on.



    Motorola still have the case for past damages for Apple's refusal to pay for the patent in the past. But even if that was $20 per device you are only talking $1b-$2b, small change for Apple, they won't feel any pressure to license their patents in return.



    I guess Motorola will take the PUSH email patent around Europe now.



    Which is why the Qualcomm license agreement will be brought in, other companies pay Motorola's licence fee via Qualcomm charging based on the value of the chip they buy.



    Motorola seeking to terminate that license and charge Apple based on the full value of their products is where unfair and discriminatory come in, it is also anticompetitive because these tactics were used to block Apple from the German market.
  • sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,583member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    [...] In fact, Apple's win on Monday was considered so significant by Mueller that he said it raises the question of whether Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion last August has "failed before the deal is even formally closed." [...]



    Google needs to hire a Chief of Due Diligence. Somebody who will actually think things through before pulling the trigger on huge deals. All the way through. Somebody who will actually sweat the details.



    But that would go against Google's deeply ingrained shoot-first-ask-questions-later corporate culture.

    So it's never going to happen. Great news for Apple.
  • arbourablearbourable Posts: 13member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    It's nothing of the sort. It's a legal disagreement based around the fact that Apple refused to pay a license for patents that Motorola have that are essential to some products that Apple sell.



    Because the two parties can't come to an agreement because Motorola feel that five years of Apple abusing their patent should have a certain cost and Apple think it should be a different cost means nothing.



    Apple pushes their patents around, many of them really quite bulls**t like the design patents. Oddly enough when they do that, other companies also press the big red patent button and the only people who gain are lawyers.



    No, Apple have not refused to pay a licence fee... in fact they have made several offers to Moto all of which have been rejected. That is very different than Apple "refusing to pay". In fact I think the ruling states very clearly that Moto should accept Apples current offer or be held to be in violation of EU anti-trust laws.



    The second point you make is not clear... are you saying that Moto can demand whatever they like and Apple must pay up or be held to be abusing the patent? That seems a little unfair to licensees, don't you think?



    As for Apples patents, they are designed to make it difficult for other companies to copy their designs, and if the court decides that a device infringes on said patents, then the offending device / software can be redesigned to deal with that. The point you seem to miss is that Apple cannot design around a standard patent in the same way... and this is precisely why Moto's behaviour is so egregious.
  • arbourablearbourable Posts: 13member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    Not a bad take except I don't think they ever worried about Apple launching their own proprietary ad service. Apple had never shown any interest in doing that and has striven, on the desktop at least, to offer ad-free environments and products as one of the benefits of the Apple eco-system. But perhaps they viewed Apple as too powerful middle person between them and the search data that iOS users represented that they'd be better off trying to siphon some of those users off (?) Of course, Apple followed with iAd eventually, but its hasn't been much of a success and as for the search data of mobile Safari users, as we've seen, Google had a work around for Apples default cookie settings.



    Sometimes, what seemed like a good hedge only serves to hasten the very outcome that you were afraid of occurring. Now that is happening for Google, but hey, they've got Android up and very widely disseminated. It remains to be seen if that is something that will be viewed as a Google success in the monetary sense five years from now.



    One thing I would add is that Siri is sending queries that might otherwise have gone to Google search to other services, Yelp for one. I think this is a big deal in the long term and a good reason for Google to fear a dominant Apple, and give them the incentive to do the work necessary to make Android ubiquitous.
  • eastmaneastman Posts: 8member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by diplication View Post


    Uh....

    They still have iCloud, they just have to change the settings on mail to fetch instead of push, and this only effects mail and only on mobile devices.



    Exactly .. The only thing not working for us in Germany is PUSH .. We still get e-mail via iCloud and the rest .. just wont get pushed .. its just another e-mail service now .. that u either check manually or via interval .. thats all ..

    big deal .. !not
  • freckledbruhfreckledbruh Posts: 520member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by arbourable View Post


    One thing I would add is that Siri is sending queries that might otherwise have gone to Google search to other services, Yelp for one. I think this is a big deal in the long term and a good reason for Google to fear a dominant Apple, and give them the incentive to do the work necessary to make Android ubiquitous.



    The problem with that is no one knows if Apple would have gone the Siri route had Google not released Android. In fact, it is not impossible that Apple would have encouraged Google to develop a Siri-like engine for the iPhone since it worked closely with Google for the Maps app and other projects.
Sign In or Register to comment.