German court tosses Samsung's 3G patent suit, Apple's slide-to-unlock complaint

1246

Comments

  • sacto joesacto joe Posts: 604member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I'm sure there are and Qualcomm themselves tell you how to do it: If you've got some patents of your own you'd like to share, we'll take that into consideration and adjust the rate accordingly.



    BTW, thanks for keeping an open mind.



    I'm always open to intellectual persuasion. It'd be nice if everyone else was as well....
  • drfreemandrfreeman Posts: 111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Did you just make that number up out of thin air?



    Or do you have a cite?





    The number there was used for the sake of calculations and discussion. However it does not mean that it was from thin air!



    For instance look at the WIFI standard patents and have a look at the letters of assurance. There are 262 patents for this pool:

    http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb...pat802_11.html



    You can also try 3GPP and other similar standard or industry websites for more information on the number of patents.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,855member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Your link doesn't prove anything of the sort. It simply says 3.25% of the device. From Qualcomm's perspective, the device is the chip.



    See Sacto Joe's link.



    Sorry, you're wrong. Simply read the section of the license agreement that SactoJoe clipped. A chipset would not be a "complete end-user subscription device" described by Qualcomm as the royalty basis.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,855member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    Not well said. Motorola wants 2.25% for a single patent that's FRAND-encumbered. Qualcomm gets 3.25% for a collection of FRAND patents. Big difference.



    Motorola has more than one patent they contributed to the essential standard. The reason you think the 2.25% applies to only a single patent is because there's only been one particular one mentioned in the case. The license would include all applicable patents in the pool of IP that Motorola contributed to the 3G standard, not just one. If not then Moto would simply go after another one later, then another, and perhaps another. That's not the way FRAND licensing works. You buy a package. It wouldn't make sense otherwise, not that it necessarily makes sense now.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    AI needs to make a Samsung v Apple litigation infograph so we can see who has won what.
  • realisticrealistic Posts: 1,111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You're ignoring two important factors:



    1. Qualcomm only charges the royalty on the cost of the chip, not the finished device. A Qualcomm chip in an iPhone is just a few dollars, so the royalty is a few cents. Motorola wants the royalty assessed on the final product price - which would be more like $15 for an iPhone or $6,000 for a Mercedes A-class.



    2. Qualcomm's license fee covers ALL Qualcomm patents (hundreds of them). Motorola wants 2.25% PER PATENT.



    Nice try, though.



    I wanted to point out a similar viewpoint but was at a loss for words, you basically did it very well here.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,855member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    AI needs to make a Samsung v Apple litigation infograph so we can see who has won what.



    I'm sure it's on the "To-Do" list at FOSSPatents.
  • sacto joesacto joe Posts: 604member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Motorola has more than one patent they contributed to the essential standard. The reason you think the 2.25% applies to only a single patent is because there's only been one particular one mentioned in the case. The license would include all applicable patents in the pool of IP that Motorola contributed to the 3G standard, not just one. If not then Moto would simply go after another one later, then another, and perhaps another. That's not the way FRAND licensing works. You buy a package. It wouldn't make sense otherwise, not that it necessarily makes sense now.



    Fine, but what percentage of the pool does Moto represent, and why is it "double-dipping"? Or is it going to apply that percentage to all who license?
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Motorola has more than one patent they contributed to the essential standard. The reason you think the 2.25% applies to only a single patent is because there's only been one particular one mentioned in the case. The license would include all applicable patents in the pool of IP that Motorola contributed to the 3G standard, not just one. If not then Moto would simply go after another one later, then another, and perhaps another. That's not the way FRAND licensing works. You buy a package. It wouldn't make sense otherwise, not that it necessarily makes sense now.



    No, the reason I think it's 2.25% PER PATENT is because that's what Motorola and Google both said.



    Please try to keep up.
  • sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,582member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    [...] Friday's rulings wrap up what Mueller declared to be a "phenomenal" week for Apple in Germany. [...]



    When Steve Jobs announced the first iPhone, he said that Apple had applied for dozens of patents related to it. Plenty more where the "slide to unlock" suit came from.



    3G patents: basic technology that everyone is forced to use.



    Apple patents: look-and-feel that everyone else wants to copy.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,855member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    No, the reason I think it's 2.25% PER PATENT is because that's what Motorola and Google both said.



    Please try to keep up.



    Please provide the citation where either one said another 2.25% royalty applies to each individual patent in the standards pool. I say they didn't. Now you get to prove me wrong.
  • drfreemandrfreeman Posts: 111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    Fine, but what percentage of the pool does Moto represent, and why is it "double-dipping"? Or is it going to apply that percentage to all who license?



    GG is trying to bend words and create a parallax here that does not exist and is wasting our Friday afternoon.



    The reason it is double dipping is that the patent in dispute, is used in a chipset fabricated by Qualcomm. When you or Apple or anyone else buys that chipset, a subset of the money is transferred to Motorola as royalty.



    What Motorola wants is another 2.5% of the total value of an iPhone for using these patents which are in the chipset that qualcomm makes which it is receiving royalties for already!



    This is FRAND abuse and you may have noticed with all the noise in the background, Moto has not been able to win given the FRAND nature of the patents in dispute. Samsung also is now being investigated by the EU for FRAND abuse because they tried obtaining injunctions against Apple based on FRAND patents. I would not be surprised that the same happens to Moto at some point.



    I hope this helps!
  • timmydaxtimmydax Posts: 284member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Sorry, you're wrong. Simply read the section of the license agreement that SactoJoe clipped. A chipset would not be a "complete end-user subscription device" described by Qualcomm as the royalty basis.



    Um, sorry to piss on your chips guys, but is anyone using LTE and not CDMA in their chipsets? (ie. incurring the hotly-debated ~3% of final device cost, instead of the regular CDMA costs)



    Apple certainly won't be. Can't think of any reason why anyone would be.



    Seems like Qualcomm are placing a premium on LTE-only, encouraging people to buy their multifunction GSM/CDMA/LTE chips (like Apple do 4S) instead.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,855member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    Fine, but what percentage of the pool does Moto represent, and why is it "double-dipping"? Or is it going to apply that percentage to all who license?



    I haven't seen any claim on what portion of the pool came from Motorola.



    As for "double-dipping", Qualcomm claims they had a license to Motorola's patents in the pool, and they extended that license to Apple per a contract agreement. Motorola disagrees with that, but the court has signaled that they'll probably (not definitely) side with Apple on this one. That's why no injunction will be on the table until the court comes to a final conclusion. No particular outcome is yet guaranteed, but as of now it looks like it's probably going to go Apple's way. Add Apple's recent offer to license anyway, (letting the court determine an appropriate royalty?) and Moto is between a rock and a hard place. If I were them I look at this one as a done deal and move on.
  • sacto joesacto joe Posts: 604member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I haven't seen any claim on what portion of the pool came from Motorola.



    As for "double-dipping", Qualcomm claims they had a license to Motorola's patents in the pool, and they extended that license to Apple per a contract agreement. Motorola disagrees with that, but the court has signaled that they'll probably (not definitely) side with Apple on this one. That's why no injunction will be on the table until the court comes to a final conclusion. No particular outcome is yet guaranteed, but as of now it looks like it's probably going to go Apple's way. Add Apple's recent offer to license anyway, (letting the court determine an appropriate royalty?) and Moto is between a rock and a hard place. If I were them I look at this one as a done deal and move on.



    That seems right to me, and seems to be in keeping with the point of view of Mr. Mueller. So what's he getting wrong?
  • sacto joesacto joe Posts: 604member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrFreeman View Post


    GG is trying to bend words and create a parallax here that does not exist and is wasting our Friday afternoon.



    The reason it is double dipping is that the patent in dispute, is used in a chipset fabricated by Qualcomm. When you or Apple or anyone else buys that chipset, a subset of the money is transferred to Motorola as royalty.



    What Motorola wants is another 2.5% of the total value of an iPhone for using these patents which are in the chipset that qualcomm makes which it is receiving royalties for already!



    This is FRAND abuse and you may have noticed with all the noise in the background, Moto has not been able to win given the FRAND nature of the patents in dispute. Samsung also is now being investigated by the EU for FRAND abuse because they tried obtaining injunctions against Apple based on FRAND patents. I would not be surprised that the same happens to Moto at some point.



    I hope this helps!



    And yet, he appears to be agreeing with you (and Mr. Mueller) in his last post to me.
  • drfreemandrfreeman Posts: 111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I haven't seen any claim on what portion of the pool came from Motorola.



    As for "double-dipping", Qualcomm claims they had a license to Motorola's patents in the pool, and they extended that license to Apple per a contract agreement. Motorola disagrees with that, but the court has signaled that they'll probably (not definitely) side with Apple on this one. That's why no injunction will be on the table until the court comes to a final conclusion. No particular outcome is yet guaranteed, but as of now it looks like it's probably going to go Apple's way. Add Apple's recent offer to license anyway, (letting the court determine an appropriate royalty?) and Moto is between a rock and a hard place. If I were them I look at this one as a done deal and move on.



    Half of your comment is sensible and the other half is not (to an extent) based on the information on the net. You either have access to information that no one else has or you are mixing a few things!



    Based on the information from FossPatents:

    Qualcomm did not extend any patents to anyone. They had license to fabricate chips and sell them off. What happens next is that Moto contacted them and asked them (revoking license to sell to Apple) not to sell to Apple only! The dodgy part is that there is no license to revoke! The license does not state that you cannot sell to competitor and alike given it is FRAND!



    This is something that beggars belief! Qualcomm obviously refused and we are now here. FOSSPatents published some of the emails between Qualcomm-Apple-Moto!
  • drfreemandrfreeman Posts: 111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    And yet, he appears to be agreeing with you (and Mr. Mueller) in his last post to me.



    He is kind of agreeing for the wrong reasons and I intend to make him agree with me for the right reasons!
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,855member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrFreeman View Post


    He is kind of agreeing for the wrong reasons and I intend to make him agree with me for the right reasons!



    In your view what are the right reasons?
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,855member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post


    And yet, he appears to be agreeing with you (and Mr. Mueller) in his last post to me.



    I've also never disagreed that Motorola should never have started the legal action over that set of patents in the first place. It may not be illegal but it's certainly against the spirit of FRAND.



    I'm trying instead to deal with the FUD: Motorola wants 2.25% royalties on each individual patent rather than the package they contributed, it's not common to tie the license to a phone's wholesale price, and claims that the 2.25% royalty is grossly excessive and defies industry standards. None of those are correct.



    Oh, and IMO Florian Mueller already knew all of that. . .
Sign In or Register to comment.