The 2.25% was for Motorola's group of patents pledged to the 3G standard. Otherwise it would make no sense since they could come after Apple for another 2.25% for another patent in the standards-pledged group later, then another, then another. . .
A few days ago I challenged your claim that Motorola and Google announced they wanted 2.25% for each individual patent in the standards pool. If there were 100 that would mean they wanted 225%, plainly ridiculous. I said at that time they had not made any such statement, so you still have the opportunity to prove me wrong.
If you read Florean Mueller motorola wants to do exactly that, 2.25% for each FRAND patent as a maximum value, Mueller states that at that rate it would become impossible to make a device profitable.
Motorola is currently suing for 1 FRAND Patent that it has won an injunction on in Germany and wants 2.25 % of end product sales for that patent. If they win with this one they could sue again and again over different patents.
Thats why motorola and google are extortionists and this would be terrible for the entire industry as a whole if it set this as a precedence.
There is nothing stopping motorola from suing over different FRAND patents again and again if they want too. Nothing they have said in public says that they won't. On the contrary they say that it is up to them if they sue over another patent.
Here is a good link on how motorola views FRAND patents with an analogy compared to a bank robbery that it takes only one bullet to kill:
And googles letter to the standards committee on how they will charge 2.25% going forward and will continue FRAND abuse with motorolas patents after the merger goes through:
In fact in that last post google specifically states to the standards committee in the letter that is in the article the 2.25% end product sales royalty they consider to be "fair". lol
If true, the number is similar to what Motorola has sought in its own proposed settlement with Apple. Motorola revealed in court filings in February that it has asked for 2.25 percent of Apple's sales of wireless devices in exchange for a patent license covering its standard-essential intellectual property.
This is bad journalism when you use the word 'similar' without explaining what a 'standard-essential' patent is and why it comes with a FRAND licensing requirement.
It's the same kind of false equivalence that journalists display when they talk about the public debate over global warming and evolution.
If you read Florean Mueller motorola wants to do exactly that, 2.25% for each FRAND patent as a maximum value, Mueller states that at that rate it would become impossible to make a device profitable.
No sir. Florian Mueller does not think Motorola wants 2.25% for a single patent. He says quote:
"The answer is: 2.25%. I assume this relates to Apple's sales and to all of MMI's standard-essential patents, though the context is only one patent (the one over which Motorola has already forced Apple, temporarily, to remove certain products from its German online store. Assuming in Motorola's favor that this was a license to all standard-essential wireless patents, the amount still appears excessive to me given how many companies hold patents on such standards and what royalty rate this would lead to in the aggregate."
You've simply misunderstood what he's written if you believe he was of the opinion Motorola wanted to apply the 2.25% to each and every individual patent contributed to the pool. The "aggregate" he refers to is the group of companies that contribute to a standard, not the aggregate number of patents contributed by a single company.
No sir. Florian Mueller does not think Motorola wants 2.25% for a single patent. He says quote:
"The answer is: 2.25%. I assume this relates to Apple's sales and to all of MMI's standard-essential patents, though the context is only one patent (the one over which Motorola has already forced Apple, temporarily, to remove certain products from its German online store. Assuming in Motorola's favor that this was a license to all standard-essential wireless patents, the amount still appears excessive to me given how many companies hold patents on such standards and what royalty rate this would lead to in the aggregate."
You've simply misunderstood what he's written if you believe he was of the opinion Motorola wanted to apply the 2.25% to each and every individual patent contributed to the pool. The "aggregate" he refers to is the group of companies that contribute to a standard, not the aggregate number of patents contributed by a single company.
How sad. A classic example of when blind, emotional loyalty a brand clouds reading comprehension skills. I find it kind of sad that you have to educate people on how to properly read and parse paragraphs especially when these articles were already to be understandable for the masses.
And googles letter to the standards committee on how they will charge 2.25% going forward and will continue FRAND abuse with motorolas patents after the merger goes through:
In fact in that last post google specifically states to the standards committee in the letter that is in the article the 2.25% end product sales royalty they consider to be "fair". lol
If 2.25% of the device selling price is unfair, what would you call Qualcomm's 3.25% they want of the total device sale (not a chipset) for the patents they contributed to the 4G/LTE standard. Then add in what Nokia and partner want, 2.3%, plus another 2% for Lucent/Alcatel, 2.25% for Motolola and yet another 1.5% each for Ericsson and Huawei. Oh and ZTE wants their cut too, another 1%. The total? 13.8% of the finished end-user device selling price. And that's an improvement over standards royalty rates from a couple years prior. Qualcomm wanted 5% all for themselves at the height of the 3G rollout. Yes, 5% of the device selling price, not a chipset.
Or perhaps this is fair.
Last year Nokia settled with Apple on the suit they brought against them for several FRAND-pledged patents, with Apple paying on-going royalties to Nokia on every iPhone sold. Yet that settlement didn't keep Nokia and their partner Microsoft thru MOSAID from going after Apple again last week with a different set of standards-essential patents. I suppose since they were successful asserting FRAND patents against Apple the first time they might as well try again for the same result. IMO this makes Motorola look like one of the good guys in comparison.
The problem is that too many people trusted the little bit that FOSSPatents had to say about what was fair, implying that basing the royalty off a selling price was highly unusual when it's in fact pretty darn common with phones. Very few bothered with checking the facts for themselves. Had they done so they would also have found that Motorola's royalty rate has been consistent for quite a long while and in line with the rates of other's contributing to standards, regardless what Florian Mueller was attempting to spin. I'm convinced he already knew all the facts I've posted and has his own reasons for trying to convince readers of something that isn't. That by no means indicates I agree with everything Motorola has done, especially with FRAND-pledged IP and atempting to get sales injunctions. That's not in keeping with the intent of standards IMHO.
Again the 2.25% applies to a license to the entire package of patents that Motorola pledged to that standard afaik. Motorola was showing two specific ones as being infringed by Microsoft, but the 2.25% would buy them the licensing to any Moto patents pledged for that particular standard. Are there only two that Motorola contributed? I don't know. If you have some source showing there were only those two contributed, then a simple link to the evidence is plenty to convince me.
No. Moto's legal team was directly quoted as that was per patent and they went on to say that was because "It only takes one bullet to kill". In a filed court document!.
Anyway, I've seen claims that even Apple may be paying Nokia more than $10 per iPhone sold just for the license to the standards patents they they settled with Nokia last year. Apparently 5% of the handset sales price, give-or-take, is common in the industry. I found evidence the other day that handset manufacturers that aren't willing to cross-license may be paying upwards of 13% for a license to 4G/LTE standards.
Apple's royalty payment to Nokia is not just for standards patents but also for non-standards patents.
No. Moto's legal team was directly quoted as that was per patent and they went on to say that was because "It only takes one bullet to kill". In a filed court document!.
No matter how many times that's claimed, it's still wrong. Show me proof that Motorola or Google says they want 2.25% for each individual patent in a standard and you get to be the one that proves me wrong. I've asked others several times and so far no results.
I think this $5-$15 asked for by Apple could be after cross licensing all of the other party patents. So this could be actual cash flowing to Apple. And Apple doesn't have to pay them anything more for their patents. If that's the case, it is not so cheap anymore! But not sure if this will hold - could just be the opening gambit.
Secondly, Apple has probably realized that Android is failing under its own issues. Like fragmentation, malware, etc. And Apple probably wants to just increase the pressure a little bit, so Android momentum is halted.
There isn't much point in attempting to kill Android - because then Android will be replaced by Windows phone 8. From Apple's perspective it would just be a philosophical victory. Apple can't go after MS - because of various cross licensing etc.
In fact, Apple's settlement with Nokia is by interesting. It came about after Nokia gave up on Symbian and adopted Windows Phone. When Nokia did that, Apple had nothing to fight for anymore. Quite obviously a battle between MS and Apple for these patents would be way too messy and would only serve to implode both companies. Their willingness to cross license with Nokia was only symbolic - as Nokia did not really need Apple's licenses anyway. They would be protected by MS for using Windows. Their current cross licensing offers are more the real deal.
I guess Apple is also doing this to eliminate Android and make Windows Phone the number 2. That way Apple has significant momentum advantage, installed base, etc.
So for trolls when Apple go for a licensing deal they "blinked first", but when they try to block others using their technology they are stifling innovation?
Quote:
Had Steve Jobs been alive, this would've never happened. A guy motivated by pure emotions is not really a great objective minded leader.
Apple was negotiating with Samsung in 2010. The article cited says the date that these particular negotiations started isn't known.
I think this $5-$15 asked for by Apple could be after cross licensing all of the other party patents. So this could be actual cash flowing to Apple. And Apple doesn't have to pay them anything more for their patents. If that's the case, it is not so cheap anymore! But not sure if this will hold - could just be the opening gambit.
At best Apple would recieve 5 dollars per phone after any cross licensing, but odds are they'd receive nothing from Samsung or Motorola - just the cross licensing of patents.
So far Apple's lawsuits have been fruitless - the only injunctions they've been granted were on patents that were worked around anyway. And the other looming threat (Oracle) is about to be dismissed altogether.
Apple probably realizes their position in the marketplace isn't so bad (it's very good actually), and that litigation is not needed. It would only be a risk, for minimal (or no) gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
Secondly, Apple has probably realized that Android is failing under its own issues. Like fragmentation, malware, etc. And Apple probably wants to just increase the pressure a little bit, so Android momentum is halted.
Some Android manufacturers are failing (Sony, Motorola, LG) because of competition, while others are thriving (Samsung, HTC), and yet more are up and coming (Huawei, Lenovo, Asus). Android as a platform is in good condition. Issues like fragmentation and malware are non issues, just sensationalized (for instance, Android is inherently a very safe platform, the only way malware can get onto a phone is for the user to consciously download and install a malicious app through their own stupidity).
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
There isn't much point in attempting to kill Android - because then Android will be replaced by Windows phone 8. From Apple's perspective it would just be a philosophical victory. Apple can't go after MS - because of various cross licensing etc.
Not to mention Bada, WebOS, Meego, Tizen, the latter 3 are even open source too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
I guess Apple is also doing this to eliminate Android and make Windows Phone the number 2. That way Apple has significant momentum advantage, installed base, etc.
Cross licensing with Android manufacturers won't eliminate Android, it will preserve the status quo, and eliminate the looming threat that hangs over Android. Then it's up to the manufacturers to compete in the market.
I think this $5-$15 asked for by Apple could be after cross licensing all of the other party patents. So this could be actual cash flowing to Apple. And Apple doesn't have to pay them anything more for their patents. If that's the case, it is not so cheap anymore! But not sure if this will hold - could just be the opening gambit.
Nowhere in the article does it indicate such a thing. You're just speculating in favor of Apple, most likely because you own AAPL. I mean there's literally no basis for suggesting that this is post other negotiation.
Comments
The 2.25% was for Motorola's group of patents pledged to the 3G standard. Otherwise it would make no sense since they could come after Apple for another 2.25% for another patent in the standards-pledged group later, then another, then another. . .
A few days ago I challenged your claim that Motorola and Google announced they wanted 2.25% for each individual patent in the standards pool. If there were 100 that would mean they wanted 225%, plainly ridiculous. I said at that time they had not made any such statement, so you still have the opportunity to prove me wrong.
If you read Florean Mueller motorola wants to do exactly that, 2.25% for each FRAND patent as a maximum value, Mueller states that at that rate it would become impossible to make a device profitable.
Motorola is currently suing for 1 FRAND Patent that it has won an injunction on in Germany and wants 2.25 % of end product sales for that patent. If they win with this one they could sue again and again over different patents.
Thats why motorola and google are extortionists and this would be terrible for the entire industry as a whole if it set this as a precedence.
There is nothing stopping motorola from suing over different FRAND patents again and again if they want too. Nothing they have said in public says that they won't. On the contrary they say that it is up to them if they sue over another patent.
Here is a good link on how motorola views FRAND patents with an analogy compared to a bank robbery that it takes only one bullet to kill:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...cement-of.html
They actually used that analogy in there court brief lol.
And another with how google will continue motorolas same frand abuse after acquisition of motorola:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...motorolas.html
And googles letter to the standards committee on how they will charge 2.25% going forward and will continue FRAND abuse with motorolas patents after the merger goes through:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...ds-bodies.html
In fact in that last post google specifically states to the standards committee in the letter that is in the article the 2.25% end product sales royalty they consider to be "fair". lol
If true, the number is similar to what Motorola has sought in its own proposed settlement with Apple. Motorola revealed in court filings in February that it has asked for 2.25 percent of Apple's sales of wireless devices in exchange for a patent license covering its standard-essential intellectual property.
This is bad journalism when you use the word 'similar' without explaining what a 'standard-essential' patent is and why it comes with a FRAND licensing requirement.
It's the same kind of false equivalence that journalists display when they talk about the public debate over global warming and evolution.
If you read Florean Mueller motorola wants to do exactly that, 2.25% for each FRAND patent as a maximum value, Mueller states that at that rate it would become impossible to make a device profitable.
No sir. Florian Mueller does not think Motorola wants 2.25% for a single patent. He says quote:
"The answer is: 2.25%. I assume this relates to Apple's sales and to all of MMI's standard-essential patents, though the context is only one patent (the one over which Motorola has already forced Apple, temporarily, to remove certain products from its German online store. Assuming in Motorola's favor that this was a license to all standard-essential wireless patents, the amount still appears excessive to me given how many companies hold patents on such standards and what royalty rate this would lead to in the aggregate."
You've simply misunderstood what he's written if you believe he was of the opinion Motorola wanted to apply the 2.25% to each and every individual patent contributed to the pool. The "aggregate" he refers to is the group of companies that contribute to a standard, not the aggregate number of patents contributed by a single company.
No sir. Florian Mueller does not think Motorola wants 2.25% for a single patent. He says quote:
"The answer is: 2.25%. I assume this relates to Apple's sales and to all of MMI's standard-essential patents, though the context is only one patent (the one over which Motorola has already forced Apple, temporarily, to remove certain products from its German online store. Assuming in Motorola's favor that this was a license to all standard-essential wireless patents, the amount still appears excessive to me given how many companies hold patents on such standards and what royalty rate this would lead to in the aggregate."
You've simply misunderstood what he's written if you believe he was of the opinion Motorola wanted to apply the 2.25% to each and every individual patent contributed to the pool. The "aggregate" he refers to is the group of companies that contribute to a standard, not the aggregate number of patents contributed by a single company.
How sad. A classic example of when blind, emotional loyalty a brand clouds reading comprehension skills. I find it kind of sad that you have to educate people on how to properly read and parse paragraphs especially when these articles were already to be understandable for the masses.
Kind of sad when you think about it.
I wonder if the announced Android "activations per day" will go down in light of this...
Activations per day aren't affected by anything! Unless Andy Rubin decides they are
And another with how google will continue motorolas same frand abuse after acquisition of motorola:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...motorolas.html
And googles letter to the standards committee on how they will charge 2.25% going forward and will continue FRAND abuse with motorolas patents after the merger goes through:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...ds-bodies.html
In fact in that last post google specifically states to the standards committee in the letter that is in the article the 2.25% end product sales royalty they consider to be "fair". lol
If 2.25% of the device selling price is unfair, what would you call Qualcomm's 3.25% they want of the total device sale (not a chipset) for the patents they contributed to the 4G/LTE standard. Then add in what Nokia and partner want, 2.3%, plus another 2% for Lucent/Alcatel, 2.25% for Motolola and yet another 1.5% each for Ericsson and Huawei. Oh and ZTE wants their cut too, another 1%. The total? 13.8% of the finished end-user device selling price. And that's an improvement over standards royalty rates from a couple years prior. Qualcomm wanted 5% all for themselves at the height of the 3G rollout. Yes, 5% of the device selling price, not a chipset.
Or perhaps this is fair.
Last year Nokia settled with Apple on the suit they brought against them for several FRAND-pledged patents, with Apple paying on-going royalties to Nokia on every iPhone sold. Yet that settlement didn't keep Nokia and their partner Microsoft thru MOSAID from going after Apple again last week with a different set of standards-essential patents. I suppose since they were successful asserting FRAND patents against Apple the first time they might as well try again for the same result. IMO this makes Motorola look like one of the good guys in comparison.
The problem is that too many people trusted the little bit that FOSSPatents had to say about what was fair, implying that basing the royalty off a selling price was highly unusual when it's in fact pretty darn common with phones. Very few bothered with checking the facts for themselves. Had they done so they would also have found that Motorola's royalty rate has been consistent for quite a long while and in line with the rates of other's contributing to standards, regardless what Florian Mueller was attempting to spin. I'm convinced he already knew all the facts I've posted and has his own reasons for trying to convince readers of something that isn't. That by no means indicates I agree with everything Motorola has done, especially with FRAND-pledged IP and atempting to get sales injunctions. That's not in keeping with the intent of standards IMHO.
Luv your comment!
Im glad im not the only one who see the real truth about what happened!
Better tell Apple you're smarter than the.
Had Steve Jobs been alive, this would've never happened. A guy motivated by pure emotions is not really a great objective minded leader.
Tim Cook is a much better leader in terms of being objective. I'm glad that Apple finally has its head out of its rear and face the facts.
This is business and the bottom line is most important.
Guess Apple blinked first.
I love all the comments from the Android guys that think this is in any way over.
I love all the comments from the Android guys that think this is in any way over.
Heck, there's not even anything more than rumor that a settlement is even being considered. It's far from "over" IMO.
I love all the comments from the Android guys that think this is in any way over.
What makes you think I'm an "Android guy"?
I dont even own a smartphone, any smartphone.
Yes, I'm THAT guy.
Again the 2.25% applies to a license to the entire package of patents that Motorola pledged to that standard afaik. Motorola was showing two specific ones as being infringed by Microsoft, but the 2.25% would buy them the licensing to any Moto patents pledged for that particular standard. Are there only two that Motorola contributed? I don't know. If you have some source showing there were only those two contributed, then a simple link to the evidence is plenty to convince me.
No. Moto's legal team was directly quoted as that was per patent and they went on to say that was because "It only takes one bullet to kill". In a filed court document!.
Anyway, I've seen claims that even Apple may be paying Nokia more than $10 per iPhone sold just for the license to the standards patents they they settled with Nokia last year. Apparently 5% of the handset sales price, give-or-take, is common in the industry. I found evidence the other day that handset manufacturers that aren't willing to cross-license may be paying upwards of 13% for a license to 4G/LTE standards.
Apple's royalty payment to Nokia is not just for standards patents but also for non-standards patents.
No. Moto's legal team was directly quoted as that was per patent and they went on to say that was because "It only takes one bullet to kill". In a filed court document!.
No matter how many times that's claimed, it's still wrong. Show me proof that Motorola or Google says they want 2.25% for each individual patent in a standard and you get to be the one that proves me wrong. I've asked others several times and so far no results.
Apple's royalty payment to Nokia is not just for standards patents but also for non-standards patents.
Yes, there were some of both, so the royalties may take into account patents other than just the FRAND-pledged.
What makes you think I'm an "Android guy"?
Your blind hatred of most things Apple.
Yes, I'm THAT guy.
So am I. At least, a usable smartphone.
Secondly, Apple has probably realized that Android is failing under its own issues. Like fragmentation, malware, etc. And Apple probably wants to just increase the pressure a little bit, so Android momentum is halted.
There isn't much point in attempting to kill Android - because then Android will be replaced by Windows phone 8. From Apple's perspective it would just be a philosophical victory. Apple can't go after MS - because of various cross licensing etc.
In fact, Apple's settlement with Nokia is by interesting. It came about after Nokia gave up on Symbian and adopted Windows Phone. When Nokia did that, Apple had nothing to fight for anymore. Quite obviously a battle between MS and Apple for these patents would be way too messy and would only serve to implode both companies. Their willingness to cross license with Nokia was only symbolic - as Nokia did not really need Apple's licenses anyway. They would be protected by MS for using Windows. Their current cross licensing offers are more the real deal.
I guess Apple is also doing this to eliminate Android and make Windows Phone the number 2. That way Apple has significant momentum advantage, installed base, etc.
Guess Apple blinked first.
So for trolls when Apple go for a licensing deal they "blinked first", but when they try to block others using their technology they are stifling innovation?
Had Steve Jobs been alive, this would've never happened. A guy motivated by pure emotions is not really a great objective minded leader.
Apple was negotiating with Samsung in 2010. The article cited says the date that these particular negotiations started isn't known.
I think this $5-$15 asked for by Apple could be after cross licensing all of the other party patents. So this could be actual cash flowing to Apple. And Apple doesn't have to pay them anything more for their patents. If that's the case, it is not so cheap anymore! But not sure if this will hold - could just be the opening gambit.
At best Apple would recieve 5 dollars per phone after any cross licensing, but odds are they'd receive nothing from Samsung or Motorola - just the cross licensing of patents.
So far Apple's lawsuits have been fruitless - the only injunctions they've been granted were on patents that were worked around anyway. And the other looming threat (Oracle) is about to be dismissed altogether.
Apple probably realizes their position in the marketplace isn't so bad (it's very good actually), and that litigation is not needed. It would only be a risk, for minimal (or no) gain.
Secondly, Apple has probably realized that Android is failing under its own issues. Like fragmentation, malware, etc. And Apple probably wants to just increase the pressure a little bit, so Android momentum is halted.
Some Android manufacturers are failing (Sony, Motorola, LG) because of competition, while others are thriving (Samsung, HTC), and yet more are up and coming (Huawei, Lenovo, Asus). Android as a platform is in good condition. Issues like fragmentation and malware are non issues, just sensationalized (for instance, Android is inherently a very safe platform, the only way malware can get onto a phone is for the user to consciously download and install a malicious app through their own stupidity).
There isn't much point in attempting to kill Android - because then Android will be replaced by Windows phone 8. From Apple's perspective it would just be a philosophical victory. Apple can't go after MS - because of various cross licensing etc.
Not to mention Bada, WebOS, Meego, Tizen, the latter 3 are even open source too.
I guess Apple is also doing this to eliminate Android and make Windows Phone the number 2. That way Apple has significant momentum advantage, installed base, etc.
Cross licensing with Android manufacturers won't eliminate Android, it will preserve the status quo, and eliminate the looming threat that hangs over Android. Then it's up to the manufacturers to compete in the market.
I think this $5-$15 asked for by Apple could be after cross licensing all of the other party patents. So this could be actual cash flowing to Apple. And Apple doesn't have to pay them anything more for their patents. If that's the case, it is not so cheap anymore! But not sure if this will hold - could just be the opening gambit.
Nowhere in the article does it indicate such a thing. You're just speculating in favor of Apple, most likely because you own AAPL. I mean there's literally no basis for suggesting that this is post other negotiation.